10/10 Wrap

You'll notice that the prompt for the second major essay is listed to the right for your consultation.

For Monday, read 'How To Tell a True War Story' and be prepared both for a quiz on it and to discuss O'Brien's project generally, particularly in relationship to the Davidson & Lytle chapter we've been working with. Think about the following question, which I'm sure to ask: How is the Davidson & Lytle's opposition of 'myth' and 'authenticity' like O'Brien's 'story-truth' v. 'happening truth'? More importantly, how is it different?

No response for Monday, though the response for Wednesday will require you having watched at least one of the war films for your essay, so be sure to be doing that this weekend. You don't want to be in the position of writing and watching at the same time.

Mythical?

In the excerpt "Where Trouble Comes" Davidson and Lytle speak in much detail about the way historical events are portrayed in movies. They also discuss the many choices made by the directors to make their movies more appealing and entertaining for their viewers. These choices involve making changes to some of the events that took place to make them more action packed. Davidson and Lytle also talk about the different views historians and directors have. Obviously a historian is an expert on history and will do his best to record the actual facts. However, directors are more into making their film into a big hit, disregarding the events that actually took place.

I believe that Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O' Brien a historian to a certain extent. " I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I waked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier" (O'Brien 203). That quote best describes the fact Tim O' Brien actually took part in the war, fighting as a foot soldier. In saying that Tim O' Brien talks about many events in his excerpts, many of them are fictional but they are authentic. He actually wrote a whole chapter that was completely fictional, this chapter was called "The Man I Killed." In this chapter he refers to a soldier he killed and started to elaborate on the mans life as if he knew him. He went to the extent of actually give the man a year in which he was born and even his place of birth. When referring to those stories Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O'Brien's stories to be mythical.

Happening Truth

I believe Davidson & Lytle would look at Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” and recognize that this story is authentic by O’Brien’s telling of his “happening truth.”

In Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” he describes killing a Vietnamese man who belongs to the NLF. The descriptions are very detailed each time he tells of this man’s death. I can feel his pain not only because of his repeated depictions which focuses on different aspects of the death nor because his platoon buddy, Kiowa who keeps encouraging him to let the event go, but because of need to create his “story truth” that speaks very clearly to his agony.

The two dominate myths (the western and the WWII combat epic) of the American cinema are not portrayed in the story. In this story, O’Brien feels grief for killing his man. He does not believe that “Americans have come to Vietnam to protect innocents and promote democracy…” If he felt that way, he would not need to think about this man’s life and how miserable he looked in death (Davidson & Lytle 409).

Each time he describes the man the reality is balance with a “what if.” He imagines this man may not want to fight but felt the pressure from his family and hamlet to participate in fight these invaders. He imagines that he might have gone to a university to study Mathematics. The ring on this man’s hand and picture in his personal belongs makes O’Brien think he may have been married.

O’Brien makes it clear to the reader, which part of his story is real and which is imagined; both make this authentic.

Mythical or Authentic?

Davidson and Lytle’s article Where Trouble Comes is about how many Vietnam War movies such as Deer Hunter and First Blood are mythical and have many changes in order to depict characters, background, and the war in a positive or “American” view. Since there was such protest against the Vietnam War in America filmmakers created films which did not change the outcomes of the Vietnam War but in First Blood’s case, showing a victory for America by rescuing a dozen prisoners (423). Platoon was the first successful to look at the Vietnam War itself as history and not myths of near invincible heroes and fabrications. Soldiers are not trigger happy gunmen with a mission to prove but instead are scared and will often try to weasel out of hard assignments to avoid being killed. Platoon also depicts emotions soldiers faced while fighting in the Vietnam War, “Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the invisible enemy” (424).

In Tim O’Brien’s The Man I Killed, after killing a Vietnamese soldier, an American soldier named Kiowa feels strong emotions of guilt and denial. Kiowa tells the Vietnamese soldier to “Stop staring” and “Man, I’m sorry” (144) while lying dead full of holes and bleeding. Kiowa tries to rationalize his actions by stating that it is war and he had to do something. Davidson and Lytle would look at this O’Brien story and say that is indeed authentic. Kiowa feels deep regrets for what he did and asks for forgiveness to his “enemies.”

Written by Davidson and Lytle, Where Trouble Comes, it is depicted in their article as a mythical intrepertation. This is described with a scene in Deer Hunter, which it is exaggerated into a different perspective. It is also blown out of porportion making it seem worse than what the truth and reality really is. This idea is quoted as, " in their evil hands, their holiest myth of the west - the ritual of the one shot kill was pervered into an evil game of torture." (419) With a simple kill presented in the movie it is also drastically overstated. Movies doesn't necessarily bring what's war about. It shows how films can be portrayed and what the realistic life at war can be very differently seen. Therefore illustrates that as one may show one thing it can be viewed as well as another set of outcome.
In comparison, in Good Form by O' Brien, he states that "I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember feeling the burden of responsibilty and grief." (203) This statement shows that O' Brien witnessed the tragic incident of a man's death. In addition, he explains in every detail about the man's body describing its facial position as well as body position. he also allows the viewers to have a clear and vivid feel upon his guilt upon his description about the man's dead corpse he saw. He paints the picture bringing the audience with him there.

Story-truth or Happening Truth? Mythical or Authentic?

In Davidson and Lytle’s article ‘Where Trouble Comes’, Michael Cimino discusses the dramatizations in his movie The Dear Hunter, “I wanted people to feel what it was like to be there, to be in jeopardy every moment” (418). Dramatic scenes, such as the Russian roulette scene, involve the risk of losing life. In movies and in writing, characters and situations are often made up or exaggerated in order to connect with the audience. The danger of losing life can easily help speak to an audience because it is something everybody is concerned about. The Russian roulette scene is similar to the story ‘The Man I killed’ by Tim O‘Brien. In it, he describes a dead soldier killed in battle. The connection here would be the importance of life and the danger of losing it in both stories. He uses detailed descriptions in order to help communicate images and emotions to the reader. However, we learn that most of what O’Brien tells the reader is fiction. That what he was really doing was trying to make the reader feel what he felt during the war. In ‘Good Form’ by Tim O’Brien, it has been said, “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” Both Michael Cimino and Tim O’Brien admit to having stretched the truth, if not having made up their own truth, in order to help relate to the audience or reader.

Davidson and Lytle’s article “Where Trouble Comes” does not try to depict one point of view in order to satisfy the needs of the reader, instead they are analyzing the views of many film makers who are trying to represent the Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle try to distinguish what is real fact, in Tim O’Brien’s words- “happening truth”, or what is made up to help attract an audience. Also known as ‘authentic’ or ‘mythical’. To better understand such a concept Davidson and Lytle have said “..myth deals with expectations rather than reality” (417). With that being said, it is believed that Davidson and Lytle would probably look at O’Brien’s stories and consider them to be mythical because O’Brien has even said that he writes to get an emotion from the reader, so they can feel how he felt, rather than use factual events. If O’Brien’s stories were authentic, they would include real events that have happened in the war and to himself, rather than the sad and dramatic one he tries to portray.

Reality vs. Fiction

Whose to say, with all the information on the Vietnam War that we have access to today, that any individual can't write a story in the point of view of a war vetran? Not to say O'brien's stories were mythical, but it can be assumed, allowing it to only become a different version of Davidson and Lytles "Where Trouble Comes." In this case it's short stories rather then movies, thats the only difference.
But i personally do feel that O'briens short stories are more athentic simply because the accounts he provides are so much more personal: "I remember Norman Bowker and Henry Dobbins playing checkers every evening before dark...the playing field was laid out in a strict grid, no tunnels or mountains or jungles...the enmy was visible, you could watch the tactics unfolding into larger strategies." In this sentence alone you can sense the emotion in the author, how he desired simplicty but how he it didn't exist.
"Where Trouble Comes" is a more dramatic outlook on the Vietnam War stylized to attract viewers stictly for the purpose of money, not so much to convey an idea. How Davidson and Lytles would approach O'briens work is most probably authentic, in fact his stories would be a rather strong unit in a war movie and yet another contribution to the media.
Unlike O'brien, who uses personal and touching accounts to give a vivid idea of the war, Davidson and Lytles describe a movie entitled Deer Hunter, which at most points even fails to relate much to the vietnam, which confirms how they use myths to seduce the viewer: "Sadistic guards force them to join a sadistic game of russian roulette...nick...survives...Michael...uses the bullets to kill the guards and escapes with Nick and Steven." Russian Roullete definitly has no significance in the war facts, or emotions, which supports the mythical point.

Authentic or Mythical?

In "Where Trouble Comes" by Davidson and Lytle the short story describes how producers change the facts in order to make the movies more interesting. The story consists of different movies and describing how everything is dramatized. Davidson and Lytle stated, "The historical "reality" presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle" (403), giving us an understanding that there are different forms of reality. Its not only the factual data included. The short story "Spin" by Tim O' Brien from The Things They Carried is the total opposite. Tim O' Brien was in the actual war and witnessed everything he wrote. The use of "I" is very powerful because it shows the reader Tim O' Brien was present. Davidson and Lytle would say that O'Brien is a mythical writer. "The war wasn't all terror and violence. Sometimes things could almost get sweet" (O'Brien 35), shows that when talking about a war its not all about negative. One of the paragraphs in "Spin" describes how it was a ritual to play cheeckers every afternoon. O' Brien states the positive parts of the war and leaves more of the negative parts.

Keep the realism or over Exaggerated?

Article “when trouble comes” written by Davidson and Lytle have provided examples to show how modern films create mythical representations of war .As one who knows that most of the War films have over exaggerated the true information of history from many aspects. Ineluctable, Many War films are hard to make impersonally. Obviously, the films are not accurate by engrafting personal views and emotion to a “reality recollections”.
The article is based on Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle mentioned about some war movies are using historical truth .However, while defining the real evidence found in history, director also changed or added information in order to match their personal “ideally” picture. As the authors’ state: “This piece is a dramatic film, not a scholarly monograph. Like novels or plays, films strive for an artistic standard of “truth” that resides less in the particular of historical record than rendering situations and characters in authentic, human ways. (pg 405)
“The Man I Killed” by O’Brian gives a point of view from a solider to the Vietnam War in his early time. As a witness to the war of Vietnam, O’Brian went through all the events that appeared to his sight at that time. Back to his memories, he clearly listed certain incidents he had faced in the past. At this aspect, he is a historian for fact. However, O’Brian has failed to carry the title “historian” according to Davidson and Lytle‘s perspective for what a true historian should be. The principle for a real historian is: 1. always stick with the truth. 2. Judgy a historical event in an impersonal way. O’Brian has made his 1st mistake to against the tenet, “Daddy, tell me the truth,”Kathleen can say, did you ever kill anybody?” and I can say, honestly,”of course not.” Or I can say, honeslty,”yes.”(pg 204) A historian can’t cover the truth with personal feeling which includes: guilty, shameless, embarrassment. They always have to be impartial to recount what was exactly happened during the past.
If the authors Davidson and Lytle would make a critical to the story “The Man I Killed” by O’Brian, they probably would consider it as a mythical representation not Authentic.

Detailed Reality

Davidson and Lytle write about the mythical representations of war in modern films such as The Green Berets and The Deer Hunter while O’Brien gives us his account of the war from his own perspective as a foot soldier. If Davidson and Lytle were to read some of the excerpts from O’Brien’s book, I believe that they would call O’Brien’s work authentic because they understand that this writing comes from personal experience and emotion, rather than money or entertainment. The two authors wrote about the movie Platoon and praised it for showing the true nature of war. They wrote, “Platoon also dramatizes the anguish of fighting in Vietnam. Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the enemy” (424). Rather than an epic tale of a seemingly invincible hero, Davidson and Lytle admired the sheer reality of war.
O’Brien writes about just how real war really can be in his short story titled, “The Man I Killed”. He gives us a startling detailed image of a man who he believes he has killed with his own hands. He writes, “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye shut, his other eye was a star shaped hole” (139). The reader can imagine this picture so clearly because of all of the vivid details. Davidson and Lytle would deem it authentic just by reading the first couple lines of this short story.

Does Reality Make Stories or Do Stories Make Reality?

Davidson and Lytle, the authors of “When Trouble Comes,” an in-depth analysis of representation through war films, would look at Good Form, a short story by a war veteran named Tim O’Brian in a very interesting way.
In the article by Davidson and Lytle it states: “John Wayne’s film demonstrated that although myths might distort history, they could not ignore it entirely if they hoped to speak to audiences in lasting and satisfying ways. The tensions between ideal and the real, between “what should have been” and “what was,” made The Green Berets an unconvincing film for many Americans”(410). This quote can be explained that in order to capture audiences, the use of myths to represent cultural ideals and expectations, whether historically accurate or not is very important. These myths are carefully chosen to give the audience a full understanding of what is meant to be represented or demonstrated through that specific story or film.
In O’Brian’s short story he writes: “ I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth”(
203) He later states: “What stories can do, I guess, is make things present”(204) This author is trying to convey the message that he may tell a story in a way that although is not historically accurate, is expressing and even stressing the ideas and feelings behind what could be an authentic occurrence. Particularly in this short story, O’Brien first tells the reader that he was a foot soldier patrolling Quang Ngai Province and establishes that as truth. He then shares a short event where he was present and witnessed an opposing soldier dying, but states that that occurrence never happened. The reason he does this is to be as Davidson and Lytle would say, “mythical,” in order to illustrate to the audience how he was feeling at that time. Next, O’Brian states what he calls the happening-truth, as he truthfully admits to the “faceless responsibility and faceless grief (203)” that he is left with after witnessing the dead bodies as a soldier many years earlier. This preceding statement is what Davidson and Lytle explain as "authentic." The story-truth is what follows as the author exaggerates these feelings of responsibility and grief by saying that he killed that member of the opposing forces, “attaching faces to grief(204)”.
As we can see, producers, authors and the like, use mythical and authentic stories or movies in order to suggest and expression their feelings. The controversy then arises of whether reality makes stories or stories make reality.

Truth or Lie

Davidson and Lytle conclude that " The historical 'reality' presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle". (403) In other words, first hand documents such as letter or diary often give the most accurate information about particular events. Second handed documents such as books and films are most likely to give false information because this kind of information usually include personal emotions and point of view. Tim O'brien's stories about Vietnam War is more likely to be consider as mythical according to Davidson and Lytle's conclusion.

Even though that Tim himself was a soldier in Vietnam War that experienced the truth behind the war, but the story which he writes is not 100% accurate. This is because he put too much his own emotions into the story and sometimes, he even make up his own stories in order to make the it more interesting. Quotes such "I remember his face, which......I was present" ( Tim O'brien 203) and "I want you to feel what I felt.... happening-truth." (Tim O'brien 203) evidenced that the story "The things they carried" is not all about truth but the author's emotion too. According to Tim, that when reader falls into the emotional words in an article, he/she will consider this story as a truth whatever it is really truth or not. Tim thinks that the truth can not be written, truth is what the reader feels about it. When a reader feels the same way as the author does, than it is a truth.

Mythical vs. Authentic

In the reading, “Where trouble comes” by Davidson and Lytle, they discuss the Vietnam War and how exactly film makers played off of the war. They discussed how many movies were geared towards a mythical view of the war, “because myth deals with expectations rather than reality” {417 Davidson, Lytle}. On the other hand some screenwriters took the controversial road and chose to create more of an authentic film. For Cimino, authenticity seems to revolve around dramatic feelings and constructing an emotionally arresting moment rather then a recreation of the wars historical context.” {416 Davidson Lytle}. The problem with these films is that they don’t give the audience a real knowledge of the war, rather “the message was tailored perfectly for those filmgoers who as Coppola said, didn’t want to “feel guilty” and who could now leave the theater singing God bless America, believing that the myths at the center of Michaels world remained intact” {Davidson 419}.
In the stories which O’ Brien writes about he discusses some truthful killings within his peaceful domain. As he states in his article, “Spin,” “The war wasn’t all terror and violence. Sometimes things can almost get sweet” {35}. This is more of a mythical approach. In this passage O’Brien explains that at many times during the war it was quite peaceful and the fellow soldiers would play games with one another. “How’s the war today somebody would say, and Ted Lavender would give a soft spacey smile and say, “mellow man, we got ourselves a nice mellow war today” {36 O’Brien}. This according to Lytle and Davidson would be a mythical view, one that many audiences may be fooled by, however not very true. On the other hand, in the article, “The man I killed” by O’Brien, there is much detail, feeling and compassion. It discusses an American man who killed an innocent man during the Vietnam War. The man could’ve been a million things but the Americans took his life away. Davidson and Lytle would call this more of an authentic story. Historians may be able to relate to it a little more, because it has a little more truth to and reality to it. The Americans killed many innocent civilians and as much as one may like to admit that they didn’t, this story tells it like it is. “Twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village My Khe. I did not kill him but I was present you see and my presence was guilt enough. I remember his face which was not a pretty face because his jaw was in his throat I remember feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself, and rightly so because I was present” {203}.

nicolefarahnik o brian mythical.authentic

Davidson and Lytle would consider O’Brian’s stories as mythical. According to Where Trouble Comes, by Davidson and Lytle , it is stated that “A myth, to quote one dictionary definition, is “any real or fictional story, reoccurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideas or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions.” (405) According to this quote, as long as the same feelings or interpretations are perceived, then the story, which could be fiction or nonfiction, would be considered as a myth. Where Trouble Comes shows us that movies and stories do not show the real truth anymore, but rather dramatize everything to make it bigger than what it really is. “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” by O’Brian, Good Firm. According to O’Brian, truth is when you get the same feeling that the actual person who went through it has gotten. He considers it more important to get the emotional value, rather than the occurring truth.

Mythical or Authentic

If Davidson and Lytle we're to read Tim O'Brien's material, they would consider it to be mythical. In "When Trouble Comes" they define myth as, "any real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or giving expressions to deep, commonly felt emotions." What Tim O'Brien writes aren't exactly non-fiction material, but what is true is that he has primary source of the Vietnam War, which is his experience as a veteran of the war.

As a person who fought in the Vietnam War, O'Brien has a better understanding of what really went on in Vietnam, rather than a news reporter who was just reading out military charts. However, his stories would be seen as mythical because O'Brien himself writes, "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." Writing by this theme, he retells what he felt in Vietnam by giving it a dramatic feel, which would cause Davidson and Lytle to call it, "radically different from that of a letter or diary..."

Jason Eisenberg, Myth or authentic

The main idea in where trouble comes written by Davidson and Lytle is about how Movie companies add fake details and change the story line of an historical event to make money. Davidson and Lytle think it is wrong for movie companies to continue the trend, rather they should give the whole truth

Davidson and Lytle when reading Tim O Brien’s stories would find the stories to by mythical. Davidson and Lytle want movie companies as well as people telling stories about the Vietnam war for example to give the harsh facts even if it may be tough to swallow. They do not want movie companies and historians to depict the war in the wrong way. They don’t want the facts changed for movie companies to benefit off of. In the passage Where Trouble Comes it states “Grant the search for profits often pushes Hollywood to distort the past in hope of making films that audiences need and want to see”. (Davidson, Lytle.405). They are saying that many myths are added to war stories to attract the consumer. O’ Brien in his stories talks about how Lieutenant Jimmy Cross thought days and nights about the women he loved whose name was Martha. “In the late afternoon, after a day's march, he would dig his foxhole, wash his hands under a canteen, unwrap the letters, hold them with the tips of his fingers, and spend the last hour of fight pretending. He would imagine romantic camping trips into the White Mountains in New Hampshire “. Davidson and Lytle would call these accounts by Tim O’ Brien Mythical. They might say O’ Brien stories at times are nice, but too mythical. They would say that in such a brutal war there was no time to sit back and think of women back home. To Davidson and Lytle O' Brien is telling us these stories to soften up the real truth about the war. Davidson and Lytle would accuse O’ Brien of being mythical so in the future people would get a good feeling about the war and not the correct account of the war which Davidson and Lytle are stressing. The story is it self may be authentic. but the way it is told regarding the Vietnam War is Mythical because it brings a false representation of the Vietnam war.

Is O'Brien a True Historian

In O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed” he spoke a lot about what the man looked like and how the bullet holes affected his looks. These sections are historic but when he goes on to talk about what the man he killed used to feel and how he was raised, he has no idea. He is just saying what he thought happened, there is no was to see if that was the truth. He is just speculating. It is a fact that “the man’s head was wrenched sideways” (142). Because others could have seen it, but that the man killed loved mathematics is not a fact.
If O’Brien is supposed to be a historian he needs to stick to more facts and less feelings. I think that Davidson and Lytle would have a problem with calling O’Brien a historian. They would feel that he doesn't stick to the story enough. Also, in the end of “Good Forum” by O’Brien, he states that he would tell his daughter that he didn’t kill anyone when he wrote other stories about killing someone. Historians are supposed to tell the whole truth and let the reader see the facts and grow their own opinions. In their essay “When Trouble Comes”, Davidson and Lytle write that “like novels and plays, films strive for an artistic standard of ‘truth’”, so too O’Brien’s stories are changed by his own feelings and thoughts, they are a form of the truth but they aren’t fully truthful. So I think that Davidson and Lytle would view O’Brien’s stories as entertainment but not history, due to all of the opinions in the text.

The truth?

Davidson and Lytle talk about how directors make certain choices when creating a movie with historical truth in the excerpt read in class titled “Where Trouble Comes”. Some scenes actually happened, some were fabricated to make it interesting. They talk about how historians and filmmakers have different views. For example, historians stick to the truth and what really happened, while filmmakers will change everything disregarding truth-value to make their money. In fact one director, Michael Cimino, had openly admitted to doing so in an interview for this excerpt. He was questioned about a scene referred to as the roulette scene and said he wanted people to feel what it was like to be there. He said these “emotionally wrenching” scenes were used to sustain the viewers interest and make them feel what it was like to be there. The author said in this excerpt “Cimino was reluctant to talk, claiming he had only read about such games in a ‘newspaper report’.” So is this real? The authors consider this scene to be mythical.
Tim O’Brien can be considered a historian. Except this historian actually made the history and wrote his account of it. Davidson and Lytle would definitely consider O’Brien’s war stories as mythical because his reasoning was not to sustain interest but to feel what he felt, or what it was like to be there. We wonder throughout all the stories O’Brien is telling and we’re asking ourselves is he for real? Did these things actually happen? When we get to the chapter “Good Form” he says it was invented. Then he says “…I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present… Even that story was made up.” Earlier in his book he wrote a whole chapter on how he killed this man, the story was authentic though fictional. It was an account of things that happened during this war, even if he himself didn’t witness it, it happened to some G.I, sometime, somewhere during the years America was fighting. It is authentic.

10/3

In an effort to make up for the class' general lack of knowledge about the historical realities of the Vietnam war, we're dividing up the period into years, with each of you taking one year and writing a 3-5 sentence (no longer) summary about what was happening in Vietnam during that year (even if your year follows or preceeds the height of American inolvement, we want to know something about what was happening in Vietnam during that period). We will assemble these into a 'timeline' we can post on the blog to give ourselves a sense of the events and their order. Critically, you must cite the source of your information, as you would on a works cited page. When you have finished, email your mini-paragraph and citation to me and I will post the results here on the blog.

Those of you who missed class were assigned a year--email me to get it.

Secondly, read all of the O'Brien listed under important links (two separate links, and 'Tim O'Brien: Spin, The Man I Killed, Good Form' consists of three pdf files). Expect a quiz on the reading Wednesday. In fact, expect a quiz every class until the reading consistency improves.

Lastly, post a response of 250-400 words connecting a specific moment (no more than a scene or one of the shorter stories) in one of the O'Brien stories to a specific quotation (of your chioce) from the Davidson and Lytle article 'Where Trouble Comes' in order to answer the following question: How would Davidson and Lytle look at O'Brien's stories? Would they call them 'authentic' or 'mythical'? Be sure to quote 'Where Trouble Comes' and O'Brien in your answer.

Because there is no school Monday, all of this is due by Wednesday at 10am. And of course, those who haven't yet read 'Where Trouble Comes' should do so immediately and expect it to also be covered in Wednesday's quiz.

about the Vietnam War

well.,be honest .My history wasnt that well when i was in high school for world history.As i know that the war of Vietnam is consider as the 2nd indochina war.After the the world war 2(1937-1945),American had send lots of soilders to Vietnam inorder to agianst the north Vietnam which they were on the south Vietnam's side.However , thats the only war which Ameircan had lose from all the time till now. Vietnam War is one of the special event from the cold war time, its the only war actually starts to use weapon to against eachother around that time.In addtion, this war had last for ten more years , American really spend lots of money for it.It was consider as a big mistake for the plan of American military .

Personally, im not into WARs.Also dont want see any war around the world.We are all human beings, thats the point.Why dont fix problems piecefully?"If there is still evil exists, that would be human's heart."(a quote from a game i have played)Human are eveil sometimes.We really cant blam the mistake to any one of them.If the war start, both will be respons to everything.No one is complete right or wrong.As we back to the history,Vietnam War did increased the problem about race ,human rights also discrimination problems in United States.It brought a great damage to the Ameican political,people who lives in american were livins in the minds of shadow for a long time.

Im not a war fan , so i really cant give that much opinions.But i hate WARs.It could really destroy a nation at a wrong decision.I dont know whats gonna happend in the future ,but my other hope is to make Bush stop hurting Iraq for stupid reasons.

Vietnam War

A question about Vietnam War films I would ask is why so many details are changed in Vietnam War films? Are filmmakers pressured by the government to show a certain point of view or perspective? Perhaps filmmakers believe they will earn more money if it’s shown in a more positive view of America and that will attract more viewers. A lot of people including myself don’t know all the details and what is true and what is not true due to various movies changing the facts in a certain way.

I don’t know much about the Vietnam War other than what I was taught in high school and what other people have said. I haven’t watched much Vietnam War movies and war movies in general. I was taught that the Vietnam War was one of most brutal wars ever and that America essentially lost the war. The point was to stop communism from spreading and in the end America failed that and Vietnam turned into a communist country. There were a lot of protests here in America for against the war and that we should stop it before we lose more soldiers in the Vietnam War. Soldiers were not as passionate and were unsure of what they were fighting for in the Vietnam War. A lot of soldiers were both mentally and physically hurt and could not function well after the war. I think it was also the first time they used biochemical warfare and that they used mustard gas but I’m not too sure about this. All in all, I know that the Vietnam War was a terrible war that resulted in many dead and hurt people.

I don't Know

I always wonder how, the people who make the movies about war, they make the scene of a big explosion without actually making the big explosion? I also wonder how they know that the way they look at the war is the right one and why they decide to choose that they will pick that side?
I also wonder why they pick the people they pick to do the movie or be the main character? Of wars I know nothing. Wars have never being any interest to me. I watched movies that are related to wars and have information about wars and they are name after some war but the thing is that I will only see if for the action in the movie and for the historical context. So all I know about the war we are talking about is the parts that I remember from the film and that is kind of all of the knowledge that i have of this. I am not such a history fan so I do not pay attention to the day of wars and reasons they happen and I do not know the name of wars that happen. I would say that there are only 3 wars which I remember which are the US Civil War and Both World Wars. So this part of the class. When people say Vietnam war the only thing that comes to my mind is that it was a war and that is what I know about this issue.

The Televised War

When I hear someone mention Viet Nam I think of those turbulent days of protest, the Draft, sit-ins, Berkley, kids getting high, Haight - Ashbury, Twiggy, The Beatles, Timothy Leary, long hair and bell bottoms, “free love,” Star Trek, bra burning, flag burning, HAIR, “trust no one over thirty,” the Black Panthers, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Bobby, Mai Lai, Kent State, 1968 Republican Convention, the TET Offensive, the Summer of Love, Agent Orange, a little girl, naked running down a road, should the shape of the table be oval, round, square, rectangle or triangle?, and the daily death toll every evening on the six o’clock news.

For me the Viet Nam conflict was just something that was happening somewhere else. I would watch it on TV or read something about it in the “Long Island Press.” Most people supported the war in the beginning but as the conflict escaladed, the regular army troops were not enough, so a decision was made to start the draft; this is when public opinion started to turn against the war and after the TET Offensive I didn’t know anyone who supported it.

Many boys, evaded the draft by going to Canada, enrolling in college programs that such as education to get a number that would keep them from being called and some even registered themselves as conscious objectors when they signed up, facing ridicule from everyone.

I don’t remember any movies about Viet Nam during the conflict except for one, The Green Berets. John Wayne created a propaganda film to increase or maintain support for our involvement in the war just like he did during and after WWII. I guess Hollywood realized that we would not want to go the movies to see something we were watching in very graphic detail on our televisions daily.

Many years after the war I had boyfriends who served in the Army and Marines and they would never discuss what happened in ‘Nam or what they did there. I would look at their photographs, their young smiling faces, standing or sitting with their buddies, Blacks and Whites together in uniforms that showed they were well worn from being in the jungle. But these men had sadness that hung over them like a shroud. They were never really happy about anything; cynicism was their constant companion.

I agree with the author of the essay “Where Trouble Comes,” when he/she says, “for better or worse, with more accuracy or less, far more Americans have come by their understanding of the war by viewing dramatic films than by reading scholarly histories” (403). For me my understanding of came from watching the films The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket all movies about the conflict in Viet Nam that were released some years after the war ended; but I never understood what my friends endured until I saw Platoon. I didn’t know if I should believe what I was seeing. Oliver Stone was a Viet Vet himself but the media will tell/sell you anything just to make a buck, so I invited a friend to see the movie with me on my second viewing.

There is a scene in the movie where this platoon raids a village looking for VC. When the soldiers started shooting the villagers, my friend jumped up and bolted out of the theater. In the lobby he told me he was not going back inside, he had seen enough and what he saw brought him back, “in country.” Since that time, many men that I know who have seen this movie have agreed, it is disturbingly real.

Dien Bien Phu; Viet Nam now Iraq; “those who fail to learn from history are doom to repeat it.”


In Response To Jason:
Jason, I’m going to answer your question as to why critics make a big deal regarding a controversial movie. More often than not, these critics either believe that the government’s POV is valid or they have been hired or pressured by the government to support the government’s position. The government and critics know that the medium of film can reach and influence more people over the world and time than any newspaper, magazine or newscast can.

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now".

I believe that the first time I ever heard about Vietnam was from my parents at a particularly young age. The topic about Vietnam arose after watching the movie Forest Gump. My parents obviously weren't going to go into depth about all of the details because of my young age. However, they let me know that this war was a very tragic and devastating one. They mentioned the fact that it was one of the longest and bloodiest wars, being that it lasted fifteen years. My father informed that the amount of deaths that resulted from the war were one of the highest he has ever heard of, he stated that the deaths were in the millions. What probably hit me the hardest was the amount of young boys that lost their lives for what in my opinion was a lost cause. Other movies that I have watched about Vietnam include Hamburger Hill and Full Metal Jacket. Movies portray a very vivid picture of wars from the authors point of view. The main question that I would like to be answered is, is the images and action from the movies I stated above really true? Where they dramatized in any from to make the viewer more drawn to it? I feel that movies about any time of war are rather depressing. However, I do feel that they are necessary to some degree. The whole world should be aware of what their government involves themselves in, including wars.

I have also learned and heard about the Vietnam War throughout my years of elementary and high school. I go to school in the United States, so my knowledge of Vietnam is obviously from an American point of view, which in my opinion leaves out all of the horrifying details.

"No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War. It was misreported then, and it is misremembered now". --Richard M. Nixon, 1985

The Vietnam War

When portraying something in a film as historical and dramatic as a war, what reasons could there be for certain exaggerations being displayed? Clearly, a war is full of the blood and gore of any horror movie, as well as real life instances that could interest any viewer. This weeks reading 'Where Trouble Comes' uses specific questions in order to help create a "historical lie-detector test" for movies depicting the war. My question is, if war, particularly the Vietnam War, is so controversial already and has all of the drama that may interest an audience, then why must they embellish such a topic for film?
To be completely honest, I don’t know very much about the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter. In junior high and high school I learned all about world history and specifically United States history. However, unfortunately, I don’t remember any of it. I don’t remember having seen any war movies and I definitely don’t recall what I may have learned in anything I read about the Vietnam War. When the Vietnam War is mentioned, I think about how all throughout high school my friends Andres and Thomas would spend four long periods talking about war, past wars, current wars, foreign wars- you name it. And I think about how they both joined the Army once they graduated last year. From what I remember, the Vietnam War was one of the most bloody and longest wars to date.
I know that with any war comes a lot of death and violence. I was raised by my mother, a very peaceful woman, who wouldn’t even allow a water gun in the house so as a little girl I had no interest in guns and fighting and to this day I still don’t. I support our troops but I do not support the war. Even so, I still feel that in order to really have a real opinion on important topics like this; you must know as much information as possible. I’d like to learn more about the Vietnam War so that I wouldn’t be relying on others opinions, instead I’d be constructing my own.

Misunderstanding Through Misleading Representation

In class we just finished our discussions about ad representation. We talked about whether or not the ad being shown projects the product being sold as something different than what it is. In other words, does the advertisement give a false depiction of that specific item? Through these possibly misleading messages, an incorrect image or idea could be conveyed rather than the real or correct message. Concerning war films, do you think that the way that specific wars are portrayed in movies, actually capture the real life occurrences and experiences that really took place? Are war films drastically dramatized and therefore be misinterpreted? Are necessary details emphasized too much or too little? All these questions are very important in order to determine whether or not certain war films should be relied on for an accurate account of history.

I personally do not know very much about the Vietnam War. I know that it occurred from the mid 1960s through the middle of the 1970s. There was a lot of controversy about how long the American troops should have stayed in Vietnam. I am aware that the majority of the American soldiers were very young; many in their early twenties if not younger. Unfortunately, the American death toll from the war reached numbers above fifty thousand and the Vietnamese casualties more than one million. Also, I know that many people today are making comparisons between the war in Iraq with the Vietnam War. I really have not formerly learned about The Vietnam War but I would like to. I have seen the movie Forest Gump, which although was fictional, did include scenes relating to Vietnam. Due to my lack of knowledge about this topic, I do look forward to learning more.

Vietnam: another sacrifice to the Cold War

As we all should know about that after the end of WWII, two superpower nations: The United States and The Soviet Union share the most benefits over all the nations. As the war ends, the world has divided into two "sides" as well as Europe. The united states and its allies control the western part while the Soviet Union takes the Eastern part and east Berlin too. Cold War is a term describe the competition between the United States and The Soviet Union over ares such like political and military power. Through out the 50's, fear of communism spread out all over the nation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union is not satisfied for the situation in Europe. Soon, they plans to have the idea of communism distribute to the southern Asia, and than put it into action. The United States in the other hand, afraid that the communism is taking too much influence to the world, so they put into action too in order to share the idea of democrat which people own the government instead of dictatorship. Vietnam, as the result of the cold war has been divided into two parts: the north which is communism and the south which is democrat. In order to stop the communist, the U.S sends out troops to Vietnam to support the south.



No war is ended peaceful and so Vietnam. Millions of soldiers are either died or wounded in the war and civilians too. Ask for what the two superpowers gained in the war, the answer is "Nothing" because the war takes 15 years which is so much longer than the WWI & WWII. And the result is that the war ended with a peaceful treaty which is signed in Paris between two sides in 1973. Two years later (1975) , the north crossover the south, Vietnam is united which than brings communism back to Vietnam. This brings so much question to the U.S government such "What is the purpose of war?"and "Is there any explanation to the death of U.S soldiers." Until now, people in Vietnam are still suffering from the impact and there are people still suffering from the shadow of the war too.



It is true that films like Vietnam war or based on any other war are not showing all the events in accurate even documentary film. But evidences like the Vietnam war memorial field in Washington D.C is still refreshing our memory back to the painful 60's.

Vietnam War, a Hollywood hit

There are couple of questions I would like to ask about the Vietnam War and this essay. What is it with filmmakers and this obsession on trying to create a myth about the Vietnam War? I would also like to know why they would do this since I think it doesn't collaborate with their main objective, to make money.

I guess I know a bit about the Vietnam War having read about it in high school. I think the Vietnam War was the third war in which the US was fighting against communism. The first would be the lengthy "Cold War" which was a non physical battle between the Soviet Union and the USA. The second would be the Korean War, where a UN force mainly made of US and South Korean soldiers fought against the North Korean's to stop the spread of communism in Korea. I think the Domino Theory plays a big role in why the US went into Vietnam. Since South Vietnam was supposedly the "domino" that was about to fall to communism after the departure of the french colonials. Since that was the USA's foreign policy at the time, it seemed valid for the US to move into Vietnam as they did in Korea. Also, US forces were being attacked for no reason by the Vietnamese at sea. I also know that we actually lost in the long run as the North Vietnamese run over the South Vietnamese and turn the whole country into a communist state. The US also faced many casualties and spent an excessive amount of money to fund the war. I believe many of the veterans of the Vietnam War didn't receive benefits they should have received and many suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder.

Vietnam

Right now in philosophy I am studying different types of principles that relate to moral aspects and how they should be deciphered. One theory is cultural relativism that attempts to prove through various arguments that a culture decides what is right or wrong within that culture and one can never say that what another culture did was incorrect because they would then not be following cultural relativism. My question is even though according to cultural relativism whatever a culture deems right or wrong is in fact right or wrong, in your opinion did we handle the Vietnam War in a proper manner? What actions do you think we could’ve taken to allow our troops to come back earlier and possibly have saved lives?

The Vietnam War was something of quite tragedy that took place for about way too many years, from the early 50s to the 70s.. I have not learned about it all that much except when I was in a very intense history class in high school where I learned much detail about the different conferences which took place and who bombed who and how the war finally ended. Casualties were enormous. More than 6,000 Americans were killed in just one year alone, The war finally ended in 1974 but it was a long cold war that waited too long to finish. I haven’t really watched many movies or documentaries on it but I think its something very important and even though it may be very hard to watch all the blood and gunshots and bombs its something we must remember and be educated about in respect to the prior generation and in respect to ourselves as citizens to the United States of America.

Truth or false?

Often times, Hollywood takes a real event in history and distorts it to a certain degree in order to tell the fictional story within it; movies were meant for entertainment after all. Should we trust in these Vietnam war movies or even documentaries so blindly? Although I have yet to see any films related to the Vietnam War, I have seen a couple of war movies and from what I've seen, historical accuracy is not always the priority in war films. This may actually lead the viewer into believing something completely off.
As for the Vietnam War itself, I don't really know the details as well as WWI or WWII but I do remember learning in class that the soldiers who returned home from this war were treated like dogs and disgraces rather than heroes. The Vietnam War was not only an American loss but the beginning of America's terrible record on foreign affairs. I also remember hearing how the people of Vietnam did not want America there in the first place so one could only assume one thing-why the hell in America go there in the first place? In any case, this will be an interesting topic to discuss and write about.

Too Tragic for Words

What makes a person interested in making war movies? What is it about them that makes people want to sit for 2 hours and watch a movie where people die for their good deed? It's not easy for me to sit and watch movies like that. Is it just for the money? Is it to honor our country?
I don’t know much about the Vietnam war, but I do know it was long and possibly the most bloodiest of wars. South Vietnam ended up losing as well. This war is very similar to the war in Iraq, pointless in every aspect. Too many people died for something that will never change. America thought they could fix the communist problem in Korea and failed miserably. I learned about this war in school several times but none of the information stuck. I honestly don’t care to learn about this particular war or any war for that matter. There is nothing more depressing than talking about and learning about millions of death. While the intention of war is to fight for your belief in what’s right, killing does not make things right. I remember watching a documentary on Vietnam during class one day and all that was showed was bombs being dropped. It was hard for me to sit and watch such terror being glorified. What do young kids think of this? Do the people making these movies really think killing people is ok? My uncle had served in the Vietnam war. He died when I was younger so I didn’t get a chance to really talk to him, but my mother said he was deeply disturbed after he came home from war. It changed him. He would never talk of the war did not watch or allow his children to watch any war movies. This to me says the Vietnam war was one that was too tragic for words.

jason Eisenberg the vietnam war

I would like to know why critics make a big deal regarding a controversal movie? I ask this because they should know that directors write the movie in their best interests. Whether it be making more money or etc. I would also like to know if you think the government should try to sensor a movie they thought could turn out to be controversial?
When I think of the Vietnam war I think of controversy. I think of it similar to the war in Iraq. Many times when i am watching the news I hear negative references about Vietnam when they are talking about the Iraq war. Many people were opposed to the Vietnam war similar to the Iraq war today. Most of the country today is opposed to the war and I image it was the same back then. The opposing political parties were also against the war. Over one million people died in the Vietnam war. Many people questioned the intentions of the war thinking maybe it was for political purposes not military. I feel that if it were for political purposes it is a crime giving all those soldiers that risked their life for America for no reason. Many government officials even admitted later on that the war might have been a mistake. The Vietnam was from my knowledge was North Vietnam against America and southern Vietnam.
I never learned about the Vietnam war in school. My friend who is into past wars told me about the war. When I was told about the War I felt that like today America had domestic issues that they should have taken care of before worrying about a different nation. I have never seen a movie about the Vietnam war and given what I know about the war I would not want to watch one.

10/1

For Wednesday, read 'Where Trouble Comes,' which is analysis of Vietnam films, then come up with a question about Vietnam war films and/or the essay which you think the class should answer. We'll use these questions for a jumping off point for discussion, so questions without yes or no answers are preferred, as are questions that cannot be answered in one sentence or less, such as '1967.'

I'd also like to get a sense of general class knowledge, so in the second part of your 250-400 word response tell us what think about when you hear reference to the Vietnam war. I'm particularly interested in where and when you've learned about it (including school but not limited to school), and what films you have seen or know about dealing with the subject, what stories you've read, how you feel about them, how they portray the Vietnam war, etc. That is, give a general account of your understanding of the war and in particular the methods by which that understanding reached you. As always, the responses must be posted by 10am on Wednesday for credit.

We'll watch portions of two of the films mentioned in the essay on Wednesday. Also, for the following Wednesday (we're off Monday for Columbus Day) I'll be asking you to watch a war film on your own and write a response on it, so be prepared to find time in your schedule for that over the long weekend.

9/26

Here is the correct information for your works cited page regarding Ramamurthy.

Author: Anandi Ramamurthy
Editor: Gail Stygall
Title of Book: Reading Context
City of Publication: Boston
Publisher: Thompson Wadsworth
Year: 2005
Pages: 599-634

See the MLA guide to the right to properly cite the source. Remember to cite all articles as articles within a compilation or anthology, rather than just citing the anthology title. And don't forget the name of the essay or article.

I look forward to reading your final drafts Monday. Be sure to remember to staple all drafts together, with the newest on top.

Lastly, to the right you will see an article called 'Where Trouble Comes,' which will be your next reading assignment, to be done for Wednesday, October 3rd. It is not short, so some of you should be starting it as soon as possible.

9/24

At this point most of you should have received your essays via email. Contact me immediately if you have not. Remember that thought the grades are bound to be lower than one might have hoped for, another draft is due in class on Monday, October 1st. Rework the essays and you will find the grades rising. In addition, remember the new requirement: in addition to reworking the essay along the prescribed lines, you are required to include at least one quote from one of the readings in Seeing & Writing. This will mean a more significant Works Cited page, and we'll deal with that on Wednesday, though you should see a link to a helpful guide under important links on this page.

In addition, on Monday I want every draft of this essay stapled together with the newest on top. That is, the two three-page versions, the version due last Friday, and the new final version. All of these should be stapled together, with the latest version on the top.

Bring a copy of this essay to class on Wednesday, where we will work on it more. Be patient, we're almost finished spending class time on this essay.

Also, for Wednesday read pages 342-359 in Seeing & Writing.

Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls

The article, “Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls” by Katha Pollitt shows that even all those years of woman’s rights and trying to change how women are perceived in society, boys and girls still play with the same type of toys they used to play with years ago. Pollitt states that the feminist revolution is still unfinished and will take a longer time to complete. Boys grow up playing with action figures and sports and girls spend their time playing house or dress up.

As we grow up, we are subject to many ideas and notions from television, friends, and family. Pollitt states that kids essentially crave certain toys or certain ideas which come from watching commercials all day specifically catered to a specific gender. For example if a child happens to watch a cartoon with fighting in it, there will be commercials geared toward boys about action figures perhaps connected to the cartoon. Often there would be other young boys in the commercials holding the action figure in various poses and exclaiming, “Cool!” and making exploding noises. The commercial reinforces the fact that action figures are for boys and that becoming strong men are considered to be perhaps a small dream for young boys.

Even though we try to free ourselves from stereotypes of young boys and girls, the fact is that it sometimes it is hard to avoid encouraging a specific stereotype, whether it would because of television or ourselves. As Pollitt states, “We don’t have a choice, really about whether we should give our children messages about what it means to be male and female, they’re bombarded with them from morning till night.”

PICTURE

Picture, is just an image of something or someone in a second in time. It has no life and it doesn’t make a sound. It doesn’t feel and it doesn’t actually talk. Even thought is it nothing but a dead image it affects all of us. We live our lives looking at pictures to set what beauty is. We look in magazines to see the type of person we have to look like in order to be hot. Susan Bordo describes to us how we let this pictures influence us. Now we see a picture of a model in a magazine and we made that a model to how we should look like and how everyone else should also look like. Now the really skinny body is what is sexy. Before people would think that someone who had more meet in their body would be sexier because it would say that they have money and that they come from a higher class because they have what they need to be healthy and feed themselves. When we ride the trains we see advertisements all over telling you to but some pill because it’s going to make you skinny and people will do it because as human beings we want to be accepted and we want to look beautiful. We thing that the only way to be beautiful is by looking like the models in magazines. So in a way we are pressure to buy the products that will let us have the body that we desire not because of us but because that is what society is telling us. As time changes so will things and who knows how things are going to look later on. Maybe a stick would be the perfect model in 20 years from now. Like Bordo said that even kids have that image that being skinny is the only sexy way in the future they are going to still have in their mind and so they will pass it on to the next generation. Picture is what seems to drive us.

Why Is Thin In?

“You can’t be too rich or too thin,” has been attributed to the Duchess of Windsor and since most of us will never be rich, the media is trying to convince us the only way to be desirable is to be thin. Advertisements in magazines, television and billboards always depict thin women as being healthy, youthful and sexy by segmenting our body parts or in our entirety, wearing revealing clothes. As Ramamurthy stated “ ads always represent women as object to surveyed,” for the purpose of “representing women as both passive and objects of sexual desire.”

Susan Bordo believes that our society has become obsessed being thin when she says “our idolatry of the trim, tight body shows no signs of relinquishing its grip on our conceptions of beauty and normality.” When I read Christina Kim’s comments in “Golf for Women” (September/October 2006) magazine that to lose weight she allowed a Korean massage technique to be performed on her wasn’t pleasant. “They’d run upside-down bowls over my muscles using different amount of pressure,” in an effort to reduce body fat. Kim too believes as Bordo writes, “fat is the devil, and we are continually beating him…pummeling and purging our bodies that is why she hired a personal trainer, yoga instructor, dietitian/acupuncturist and massage therapist to whip her into shape.

You might think, well Kim is a professional athlete so what she’s doing is not so extreme but the average women is bombarded by articles like, “How They Lost 100 Lbs!,” in “People” magazine (May 21, 2007) or “How To Keep The Weight Off,” in “Real Simple” (July 2007) magazine or in the same issue an advertisement that ask “the question isn’t can this weight loss program change your life, but can you?,” for the new over the counter diet drug Alli. “Too Stressed To Lose Weight?” says the cover of “Elle’s” December 2006 issue where Susan Orenstein’s article “Fear And Loathing” has a passage that reiterates Bordo’s premises that children are quite aware that being fat is one of the worst things one could be. Orenstein writes, “my best friend in grade school had an obese aunt, and I remember how she was talked about, with rolled eyes and a condescending tone, as if she were almost willfully dysfunctional.”

We’ve all seen the infomercials for exercise tapes like Tae Bo, the before and after photographs of Billy’s followers, extolling us to join them, to buy the tape so we can become slim and therefore happy. Or maybe the sexy girl in the gold bikini in the back of the magazine giving us that come-on look, making us think if you buy and use “Rapid Slim” you can either become her or get her.

I’m not against the obese losing weight but I am tired of people who are at a healthy weight complaining that they are not thin enough. Unfortunately, many have such a distorted image of themselves they can’t see how beautiful they really are.



In respnse to Adangelo100:

I agree with Adangelo100 when he/she states that consumer’s “survey ad’s and try to become the women in those photographs regardless how they are portrayed.” It is unfortunate that many have so little confidence as to what looks good on them, that they try emulate inappropriate examples.

I disagree with Adangelo100 when he/she states that “most of the women shown in ads today are …heroin chic.” The fashion look of ‘heroin chic” has thankful come and gone with the 90’s.

I think Boder’s explanation of the popularity of heroin chic is dead on (pardon the pun) when she concludes that heroin chic is about … being beyond needing, beyond caring, beyond desire…to have given up the quest for fulfillment, to be unconcerned with the body or its needs – or its vulnerability – is much wiser than to care.

"Never Just Pictures" By Susan Bordo

Anandi Ramamurthy has helped us to understand the power details have in an advertisement. An advertisement is never just a picture or a placement of words, it is a powerful piece of work that can be a representation of a gender, race, or class. Depending on how something is presented, an ad can have enough power to somehow relate to a person. Ramamurthy has explained that ads, such as the Liz Taylor ad, often are portrayed certain ways to make a person or an object seem desirable. Due to images, such as diamonds or Liz Taylor, the ad seems very elegant, rich, and beautiful, all of which are things people desire to be. Ramamurthy assists the reader in understanding how powerful certain images can be. In “Never Just Pictures” by Susan Bordo, the reader is brought to the same conclusion on advertising, the power of an image.

At one point in time thicker, healthier, and more normal looking women were considered to have perfect bodies for advertising and in life. Now, if you were to look in a high fashion magazine at the advertisements today, you’d see extremely skinny, sickly looking women with clothing draping on them as though their bodies are hangers to what they’re trying to sell. We currently live in a world where skinny is everything, despite the fact that most woman today are not stick-thin but are curvaceous or have healthy bodies.

In “Never Just Pictures”, Susan Bordo examines the need to be skinny and gives countless examples on how advertisements are made at the expense of women because they change the way women, and people in general, view themselves. Bordo even uses examples on how infomercials and advertisements for diet pills are set out to give us the image that being fat, or anything but skinny, isn’t good. She goes on to say “Children in this culture grow up knowing that you can never be thin enough and that being fat is one of the worst things one can be.” Which proves the point that a single image in an advertisement holds so much power over people. It started off as a change in what models looked like in advertising, grew to be an image of what we should all aspire to be because it is what we all desire, and now it’s something that is almost like a world wide epidemic in cultural mentality.

Never Just Pictures by Susan Bordo

The article by Susan Bordo is a critique of how images , (in this case those of starved young girls) have come to be something that most people have begun to "idolize" and are setting a trend for the younger generation to "shape" themselves along the lines of the models potrayed in the ads, the article is also at the same time trying to tell the reader how an outlook can change over time, how something that was seen as "negative" or looked down upon at a point not too far back in time, can be seen as something "positive" or glamorous a few years down the line. The example of "heroin chic" becoming a fad goes on to show how a point of view can be changed with "cultural advancements."
The article discusses the effects of fashion and its changes on society, it seems to hint that these changes are just a representation of the overall changes in society. The article suggests that the changes go further than fashion and advertising, they have their roots somewhere deep within society. Changes such as a quest for fulfillment(or not) and compromising on health to focus on outwardly appearance which are now seen as "normal" but at one time were seen differantly.

Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls-Katha Pollit

The piece "Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls" byt Katha Pollit has showed us the stereotype of the society about how boys and gilrs should act like .Pollit has reached a good point about why girls have to be meek and cleaness or boy has to be masculine and strong .This is a very common social phenomenon that we can see it happen everywhere around America.She provides many cases to discuss about why parents choose to raise their kids in different ways. The birth of the infant is categorized by their gender.Whatever makes them to be that way are our society and families.Since the begining of the time, girls are rather femininie and guys are macho.Throughout the article Pollit dicussed the differences between a boy and girl and how society portrays in a certain way, if a boy possibly would to act a tad feminine it would seem rather disturbing to the point where many questions starts to stir. Pollit also mentions, the importance of women's features by giving a comparsion of ,'' Barbie", within the article she wrote , " Yet, to reject her is to say that what Barbie represents- being sexy, thin, stylish- is unimportant, which is obviously not ture, and children know it's not true" ( Katha Pollitt), this basically means that to justify that a person's feature isn't important is without a doubt false because , " looks" are indeed important and that reason alone the children understands that aspect.

"Why Boys Don't PLay with Dolls"

The passage "Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls" by Katha Pollit is mainly about society and stereotypes. Many of the issues presented in this passage relate to the various topics we have been discussing in class. People aren't just born with the connection to a certain color or even to a certain toy, it's something that we are taught by our parents and even by society. " We don't have a choice, really, about whether we should give our children messages about what it means to be male and female- they're bombarded with them from morning till night," that quotes best describes the point I was trying to make, that what we watch on television and what our parents shows us, is naturally what we are going to grow up doing. A baby girl from the time of her birth is dressed in pink, a color worldly related to with femininity and the same goes for boys with the masculine color of blue. Another important point made by Katha Pollit is that girls and boys play with completely different toys. Girls are generally seen playing with dolls and cooking sets while boys on the other hand have a toy car or even a football to play with. I also believe that society is changing somewhat. In our day and age females are now playing sports that where once seen strictly for men. The same goes for males, men are now getting more involved in activities usually seen only being done by women such as; cooking and cleaning.

This passage relates to Ramamurthy in the fact that what we see in advertisements and in commercials is what we strive to be as people. A good example that was mentioned by Katha Pollit is the Famous Barbie doll. Girls from the very young age of three years old are given the ever so popular Barbie doll to play with. Parents may not be trying to directly send their children the message Barbie carries with her, but along with Barbie comes the aspiration to one day look just like her. Women in our society desire so badly to look like the stereotypical "American ideal," in doing so you have to be beautiful, lean, and fashionable.

Never Just Pictures

As we've been discussing about Ramamurthy's excerpt in class, we've come to the conclusion that advertisements hold a lot of power in modern culture. A simple picture may induce people to do crazy things such as starving themselves. In the passage, "Never Just Pictures", the author discusses the issue of how many women and even men are succumbing to the might of the "pictures" as more fall to anorexia and the "skinny fad" which has hit America. The author even discusses how the advertisements manipulate people into believing that it's normal to be depressed as one is becoming skinnier through starvation and that beauty is supposed to look like death. 120
The advertisement has and may always be lying to the masses with its material. Many many years ago, it was the norm for women to be plump because it showed that she was of a good family and background. Men even found the body of the Statue of Liberty to be attractive at one point! But now, the very skinny body is what men desire, due to the endeavors of modern advertising.193 The author states, "So, yes, the causes of eating disorders are "deeper" than just obedience to images. But cultural images themselves are deep." (381) We may quickly glance at an image of a young girl who probably has zero percent body fat and think nothing of it but later on it will probably come up in our minds when we see more "plump" women walking about, especially if we are constantly exposed to these images. Just as the author states, images have more power than we think.

Never Just Pictures by Susan Bordo

In the article, Never Just Pictures, by Susan Bordo, advertisements are discussed as what they want to portray to the society. The women showed in ads are so skinny and every woman is starving herself so that she can look as beautiful as the women in these ads. However, there is a catch; these women are not so pretty, it is more that they have the bodies that attract everyone to look at their ad, but the women themselves don’t have particularly pretty faces. This message tells society that it’s okay to be ugly as long as you’re skinny. Another example in the Bordo article is a picture that shows a woman before she lost weight, and then the after picture. The shocking fact about this ad is that the woman before is not even heavy. This shows that society will make women who are a size eight seem fat just so that they’ll be unhappy with themselves and always want to be skinner and skinner. These ads are showing that it is desirable and beautiful to look dead and that is now what women, and even young girls want to look like.
Ramamurthy discusses how advertising can make an object seem desirable. In this article, Bordo discusses how women are the desirable objects in advertising. If they appear to look good in their clothes because they are super skinny that will attract people to their advertisements and make them want to look skinny as well. Ramamurthy also discusses how advertising can really get into a persons head, possibly without them even knowing it. The advertisers use women in this sense and degrade them in the way they convince women that it’s not okay to be more than a size two. Every ad is a subliminal message to women to become skinnier whether by T.V, newspaper or article.

Richard Billington

In this article we are introduced to the other side of the spectrum of the topic we've been discussing in class. As disturbing as advertisements we've discussed tried to be through promoting their products, nothing is as striking as Billingham's photographic diary of his parents Raymond and Elizabeth. Hornby describes the vile works of Billingham to depict what the photographer is trying to convey and how the viewers may interpret the disturbing images it provides. The article comes equipped with pictures taken of Raymond and his wife Elizabeth, and they appear rather lude and disturbing. Even the calm picture of Elizabeth constructing a jigsaw puzzle seems oddly contradicting as the tones and vibe don't company the joy a jigsaw puzzle stereotypes. To compare this to Anandi Ramamurthy's theme would be to invert her idea. Ramamurthy describes advertisements that are supposed to promote something to a customer or viewer, and how positive images of social interest are usually utilized which can be false, demeaning or sexist. In this case, Hornby does just the opposite displaying Billinghams images as crude and unappealing, but real
and even tender. Hornby describes, "There is a tone to these words that could be mistaken for blankness, just as the photograph could seem blank if one couldn't be bothered to look at them hard enough, but actually this collection is much, much warmer than that: It is clearly about love."
How could a photograph be interpretted as loveable with blood and intestines as a background or people throwing cats in the air? Perhaps Billigham has no interest in showing the bright side everyone desires to drown in knowing its entirely unrealistic. It's hard to appreciate art, that you live in every day for some people therefore its easier to appreciate a Liz Taylor ad and spray on perfume that will make you as desirable as her. Richard Billinghams work is impressive and moving, but its realism is too deep in my opinion. It's no wonder, that according to Horby, "you'd rather wander off and look at something funnier, or more beautiful, or less real."
Still Billinghams approach to art is different and enticing. His use of his own family life depicts a clear image that we can appreciate through the intense realism it provides. To see a couple in love in this gruesome way is shocking, but on some level brings hope to couples who thought they had it the worst.

Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls

In class, we have been focusing on many different topics including Ramamurthy, details in advertising, as well as gender, race and class exploitation and representation. In this article by Katha Pollit entitled “Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls” a point is discussed that I feel connects very well to the conversations we have having in class, as well as the articles that we have been reading about gender exploitation and representation. The specific passage reads:
“Every mother in that room had spent years becoming a person who had to be taken seriously, not least by herself. Even the most attractive, I am willing to bet, had suffered over her body’s failure to fit the impossible American ideal. Given all that, it seems crazy to transmit Barbie to the next generation. Yet to reject her is to say that what Barbie represents- being sexy, thin, stylish- is unimportant, which is obviously not true, and children know it’s not true.”(Pollit pg.398-99)
This paragraph come directly after a story was told of a girl being given a Barbie doll as a birthday present. As the recipient opened the present, the mother who purchased the doll relayed to the child’s mother that she was sorry for choosing that gift (Pollit pg398). By the conveyed message the acknowledgement of what this dolls has come to represent can easily be seen. As stated in the quoted paragraph above, Barbie is an inanimate object that encompasses “sexy, thin, and stylish.” To achieve Barbie’s figure has become a goal, thereby turning what should be a child’s toy into a feat or a challenge. The passage tells the reader that this product is still given as gifts and relayed through generations in spite of everything Barbie stands for. The last sentence of the paragraph above, demonstrates the reason of why Barbie is still around today. The sentence states: “Yet to reject her is to say that what Barbie represents- being sexy, thin, stylish- is unimportant, which is obviously not true, and children know it’s not true.” This means that everyone knows what Barbie represents but no one can deny the fact that these are the values that are seen as crucial in our everyday society. We see women as being exploited by how Barbie has come to symbolize what the ideal American girl should really look like.

(why is it ok for girls to play sports? (why boys dont play with dolls)

“Why boys don’t play with dolls”, by Katha Pollitt, is very on then point for today’s day and age. Even while men can wear pink and women can run multi-million dollar industries there is still an awkwardness of how one should raise their children. Today there is a bigger acceptance of homosexuality and yet there are still a lot of things parents will stop their sons from doing as children, wearing makeup, heels, ect. Some see it as unnatural. But when a girl wants to play sports her parents are all for it because if they weren’t it would be sexist. The world seems to have a biased toward those who have been wronged in the past. Women want to be treated equally as long as that means that they are treated special. Just as long as they get that special treatment that helps them along in life. The average white male is the real one at the bottom of the food chain because he has no stepping loopholes into society. He is there as he is expected to be. Just as a man, not a woman with all of feminism backing her up. From Ramamurthy and “why boys don’t play with dolls” we learn that no matter what we think we see in the world there is always an underlying motive. Whether it is that you are a feminist and don’t want you’re your son to be only in to sports or if you are just a viewer of an advertisement that you think is harmless, there is always a deeper meaning.

Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls by Katha Pollitt

The piece "Why Boys Don’t Play with Dolls" by Katha Pollitt relates very much to the topics that we discuss in class and to Ramamurthy. Pollitt’s piece basically talks about why boys don’t play with dolls and why girls do. Pollitt writes a lot about stereotypes such as boys like trucks and girls like dolls. Pollitt also talks of the mothers of children such as these, who either love Barbie or hate Barbie, and also complain about their son’s passion for sports but at the same time won’t stop him. The love Barbie or hate Barbie thing that she talks about is, the mother can’t really choose to love or hate Barbie. They don’t love Barbie because they’ve at least once in their lives suffered because they couldn’t fit that ideal American standard, which is being a Barbie. However Pollitt also gives reasons to why they can’t hate Barbie which is, if they hate Barbie its as if they were rejecting what Barbie represents, being sexy, thin, and stylish, and this they know is utterly important. Pollitt continues on to talk about boys and sports, like if the mothers find sports a manly activity. She also talks of feminists that complain of their sons eagerness for sports but, would not bother to stop them, because they think its certainly better that their son doesn’t stay at home on the weekends writing diaries, baking, or even reading. Pollitt concludes her piece by stating that its not the children or parents fault that they are so stereotypically raised, but its mainly due to the bombardment they receive from their daily lives, from the television commercials to the ads on the bus.

The connection between this and Ramamurthy’s idea’s of Gender Representations is basically that women are depicted as beautiful sexy “things.” In Pollitt’s article, it’s the Barbie doll which is the ideal image of an American woman, a plastic doll is the model for a human being to follow. Ramamurthy talks of how women are objects, and are such represented as passive and as a object of sexual desire. This particular piece relates to what we’ve discussed in class because I think we’ve established that advertisements are very influential on our society, like whatever that sexy model is wearing in that billboard is the thing to wear and etc. In this piece of writing, the author talks of how boys grew up playing with trucks and girls with dolls. The author blames the fact that children fit stereotypes such as these, on many factors such as the parents, friends, surrounding adults, and media. The constant bombardment the child faces daily of images of boys his age in toy car commercials, of girls her age in barbie commercials, their own mother using make up, and the dad watching sports every sunday from noon to evening. Though people are one factor why children fit stereotypes, the other main reason why is because of advertisements, with it's big impact on people of all ages, help to push children towards those stereotypes.

'Never Just Pictures'

The article 'Never Just Pictures' by Susan Bordo is about how women of all ages and even men are influenced by infomercials on television and advertisements in magazines to look a particular way, which is very thin and trim. Bordo talks about how fat is the 'devil' and many of us are constantly trying to lose weight in places such as our stomachs. She mentions how there are many tabloids everywhere advertising 'miracle' diet pills and videos with celebrities telling their weight loss stories using these products. Bordo tells us that ten and eleven years were asked to choose from drawings of children who were fat and children who were physically handicaps and they choose the kids with facial disfigurements and missing hands. She says that this idea of how we should look comes from fashion designers and models. There are now even ads with very thin-annorexic looking men as well. Many women in ads look very dead, messed-up, and wasted. Bordo is saying that things such as death, depression, doing drugs, and having an eating disorder has become glamorous. These ads are saying it's okay to have an ugly face, as long as you have a 'hot' body.

The connection between Bordo and Ramamurthy is the representation of gender. Ramamurthy states "The fragmentation of the body-particularly women's bodies-is a feature of recent commercial photography." (614) When many look at an ad with a female, we usually look at her body instead of her face or the background. Bordo is stating that advertisements influence many women to want to diet and look like these models seen in these ads. Ramamurthy says that "...women are represented as objects to be surveyed." (613) Women are seen as objects in these ads. Ramamurthy even says that we used to seeing 'cut-up-ness' in womens bodies. If many of us see a plus size model in an ad, we will probably look at her and

criticize her because she is overweight or obese. Not only is there a connection with gender, but with a connection of race and class. Bordo states "Some feminists complained that I had not sufficiently attended to racial and ethnic difference and was assuming the white, middle-class experience as the norm. Since then it has been widely acknowledged among medical professionals that the incidence of eating and body-image problems among African American, Hispanic, and Native American women has been grossly underestimated and is on the increase." (380) She's also saying that we often assume that white, middle-class men and women usually have eating disorders and we don't see that it has also been a problem among other races and classes as well.

Why boys dont play with dolls

The article why Boys Dont play with dolls by Katha Pollitt has do do with alot of things we learned in class. Pollitt talks about how even the best looking mothers try very hard to look like the american ideal women. Barbie is what the sterotypical american women wants to look like. Barbie represents being sexy,thin and stylish. Pollitt is saying that barbie is still popular so women could base their looks off of. The main point of this article is to show that their is a sterotype as to what boys and girls should be like. Boys are suppose to play sports, play with action figures, and be a big sports fan. Girls are suppose to like barbies bake cook and clean. Pollitt talks about how if a mom sees their kids writing up in their diaries reading and baking then they are considered to be antisocial,lonely or gay. She talks about how 3 year olds think doctors are males and females are nurses even though their own mom is a doctor. The reason why the kid thinks this is because society dipicts men and women that way. In most cases if their is an ad about police,fireman or army personal they show men. If their is and ad about cleaning and cooking products they show a women. This is a gender representation.
We discussed in class how it can be the companies fault for all these sterotypes. People are not born knowing these things, they pick it up from their parents and the rest of society. Ramamurthy discusses how women are dipected to be beutiful. She also says that their are gender representaions, which we can see from the article why boys dont play with dolls. If a person does something diffrent then what the society deems normal they are then looked down upon.

Ramamurthy and "Never Just Pictures" by Susan Bordo have overlapping ideas. This article sates that advertising is what is making woman want to be skinny. Women see pictures in advertisements of gorgeous thin woman, and that is what they want to be. Products are now being advertised using overly thin women. In Ramamurthys writing, he says that products are not only sold because of the product, but because of the overall idea that is being sold with the product. Susan Bordo wrote that "Children in this culture grow up knowing that you can never be thin enough and that being fat is one of the worst things one can be." (page 379) Children grow up with a certain image of what a woman should look like. That image is being advertised in every advertisement that would be read or looked at.

"Women as objects to be surveyed."

Since the first class this semester, we have discussed many things. We have mainly discussed how to pick apart an advertisement and see how the advertiser may negatively stereotype and portray a certain gender, ethnicity, race, or even an economic class. Reading works by Anandi Ramamurthy and looking at her details we see how these advertisers work. Looking at the textbook we learn to observe the world around us and see the stereotypes all over. The piece “Never Just Pictures” by Susan Bordo helps to prove some of Ramamurthy’s ideas.
Ramamurthy talks about how women are constantly being surveyed. The photographer surveys their subject and decides what is photographic. The consumers survey the women in the ad and try to become the woman in the photograph no matter how the woman is portrayed. Ramamurthy mentions how advertisers are trying to constantly create an illusion of desire even if the image is “cut-up” similar to a Picasso painting.
Susan Bordo notes in her piece that it is beautiful to look messed up, similar to what Ramamurthy mentions about the Picasso. Most of the women shown in ads today are dead looking or “heroin chic”. She questions why it is beautiful to look as if your arms are dislocated and your eyes a popping out of their sockets. Could it possibly be that the advertisers are telling us is OK to be depressed and that it’s a beautiful thing? This just tells all of America “Hey! It’s OK to have an eating disorder!” Bordo goes on to analyze these points and some of them confirm Ramamurthy’s thoughts on how women are portrayed in ads. For example, Ramamurthy tells us about “the increasing dominance of the fashion photographer” just like Bordo tells us how the dead models have a power over American youth’s minds.
The fact that advertisers have such power over the public is scary. Ramamurthy proves that all advertising does is trick us into thinking things, and Bordo gives us examples of how advertisers do this.

Class #4 Wrap Up and Response

For Monday be sure to have read the following pages in Seeing & Writing: 3-25, 27-37, 378 – 382, 393-405 564-566, 618-622

In addition, post here on the blog a consideration of one of the prose pieces (no pictures, I'm afraid) which catch your interest. Make a specific connection between a passage from one of those pieces (a paragraph or so) and our overall discussion of Ramamurthy, advertising, and representation of gender, race or class. Make this at least 250 words, and no more than 400 words. In addition, write a one paragraph comment on someone else's post.

VERY IMPORTANT: This time through, please post individual posts rather than adding comments to my post. This makes both reading and commenting on one another's work a bit easier on the eyes.

A few general comments:

Don't despair my comments on your first attempts. All of you will, with some work, find the path to a successful paper. Remember, however, that writing is a process and, more importantly, it is a process that demands we don't get too attached to what we've written. What's critical here is that you end up with an excellent final first paper critiquing an advertisement's representation of a gender, race or class, not that every paragraph from your preliminary writing ends up in that first paper. Also remember that paying attention to the demands of the assignment is critical to college writing: the essay prompt called for using the specific details of the advertisement to demonstrate how that ad may be interpreted to be at the expense of (a gender, race or class), and we'll have to stick to that goal in every draft.

Also, Jason was right on when he suggested that the final result of weaving these two pieces together will be a somewhat complexified 'pros and cons' argument. That is, after showing your reader both a positive and a negative 'reading' of you advertisement, which argument is stronger? On Monday we will work on using quotations from Ram. , easing transitions between the positive and the negative, and other things which will make the mixture easier for you. In any case, those of you who need to should be going back to your advertisement and searching for more details and analysis of those details...