This op-ed seriously made me laugh out loud. I thought it was cleverly and
humourously written. Part of the appeal in this op-ed is that it is
lighthearted, as I have said in previous posts it was nice to read something
that wasn't about war, the economy or death. The author, Joseph Tartakovsky,
took a regular, every day concept and wrote an entire piece about it.
Tartakovsky related well to his audience, providing personal anecdotes and
asking them to draw on their own experiences. I mean who hasn't groaned at the
corniest pun? I know I am constantly rolling my eyes at my father when he
decides it might be fun to quote something like Wigler's Bakery slogan ""Look
deep into our ryes." So. Cheesy. Tartakovsky even makes use of his subject
matter, the ever-contreversial pun, in his own piece.
On the matter of puns I have to say I am mostly inclined to agree with Dryden,
who called them the “lowest and most groveling kind of wit.” Especially if it
wasn't even thought up by the speaker.
I recognize that puns can have be useful in literature, particularly
rhetorically or to lighten the mood of the text, but it seems to me they still
add a certain cheapness. I am not a huge fan of puns, one or two is ok I guess
but when they get overwhelming I sort of tune them out and they become
redundant.
In some cases puns can be fun, such as in the novel "Night Mare," whose title
itself is a play on words. In this novel the puns and wordplay serve to keep the
reader on their toes, constantly sorting our the double entendres from the
literal statements. Still, puns can always be overdone.
Finally, I thought it was really interesting how Shakespeare's writing would not
have been considered full of puns but *word play* in his time. I had always
wondered why he would use a technique that is intended to be humouress when
talking about something serious. Because of the puns or wordplay, I would often
take the situation less seriously. However, if I were to now go back and reread
some of his works I would think differently.
Anyways, here's the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/opinion/28Tartakovsky.html?_r=2&em
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
"Slimey time expected at Kids Choice Awards"
Link: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1016&rip_id=%3CD9778TFO0%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
I don't know if it's just me but I found the use of, shall we say "creative," adjectives in this article very distracting to the overall story. The use of these adjectives was likely an attempt to connect with the audience but personally I spent so long trying to work out what the author meant by "glop" that I'd pretty much forgotten what the sentence was about and had to go back and reword it. This article was very short but it took me twice as long to read as it should have just because these adjectives were so disrupting to the flow of the story. Yes, I agree it is nice to be creative and connect with the core audience, but seriously, enough is enough. Even the header frusterates me, I mean what is "slimey" supposed to mean in this context? Does it have some connection to the Kid's Choice Awards? I'm presuming the answer is yes, but it would have been nice if this was made clear somewhere in the article.
I don't know if it's just me but I found the use of, shall we say "creative," adjectives in this article very distracting to the overall story. The use of these adjectives was likely an attempt to connect with the audience but personally I spent so long trying to work out what the author meant by "glop" that I'd pretty much forgotten what the sentence was about and had to go back and reword it. This article was very short but it took me twice as long to read as it should have just because these adjectives were so disrupting to the flow of the story. Yes, I agree it is nice to be creative and connect with the core audience, but seriously, enough is enough. Even the header frusterates me, I mean what is "slimey" supposed to mean in this context? Does it have some connection to the Kid's Choice Awards? I'm presuming the answer is yes, but it would have been nice if this was made clear somewhere in the article.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Dismal Economy Effects Everyone
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/03/22/homeless.horses/index.html
This article serves as a reminder that the current economy is hard on everyone, even the animals. And horses, who have high costs associated with them, are some of the hardest hit. It is truly tragic to think of people having to give up their beloved animals, many of whom are like family members. Hopefully some of these families will be able to reclaim their horses when their situation improves.
A common misconception with horses is that they can just be turned loose and they'll be fine on their own. The trouble is that a) these horses do not have the fine-tuned instincts of their ancestors (they haven't needed them before) b) horses need the company and protection of a herd, which means they'll have to find one c) it's illegal and d) life for wild horses is dangerous. It's better for horses to be taken to rescue centers than simply left by the side of the road.
Finally, I found it truly horrible that some of the horses given up by their owners are being euthanized. I hope that in these cases every other possible alternative has been considered. Even in these cases I am horrified. For these animals to have to die because of human's problems is to me truly very upsetting.
I can only hope that we'll start pulling out of this recession soon. For the sake of everyone involved.
This article serves as a reminder that the current economy is hard on everyone, even the animals. And horses, who have high costs associated with them, are some of the hardest hit. It is truly tragic to think of people having to give up their beloved animals, many of whom are like family members. Hopefully some of these families will be able to reclaim their horses when their situation improves.
A common misconception with horses is that they can just be turned loose and they'll be fine on their own. The trouble is that a) these horses do not have the fine-tuned instincts of their ancestors (they haven't needed them before) b) horses need the company and protection of a herd, which means they'll have to find one c) it's illegal and d) life for wild horses is dangerous. It's better for horses to be taken to rescue centers than simply left by the side of the road.
Finally, I found it truly horrible that some of the horses given up by their owners are being euthanized. I hope that in these cases every other possible alternative has been considered. Even in these cases I am horrified. For these animals to have to die because of human's problems is to me truly very upsetting.
I can only hope that we'll start pulling out of this recession soon. For the sake of everyone involved.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Dog Show Contreversy [I meant to post this over the weekend but I was sick, sorry]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/7931691.stm
After reading this article I was glad to see that this situation was finally coming to light. I have heard of such breeding malpractices with high class show dogs before but never have I seen it properly publicized. I think it is ridiculous that people in-breed dogs to enhance desirable traits to the detriment of each individual dog. It's not healthy and disgusting that people would do that for profit. Not only this, but breeders often breed to exaggerate a typical characteristic of a breed, like they do with horses, resulting often times in an unhealthy animal (think pugs who have been bred over the years to have increasingly 'squashed' faces with the result that many of them have breathing difficulties). I was also glad to read in the article that the RSPCA, Pedigree and BBC stopped supporting the Crufts Dog Show after the expose was released on the unhealthy breeding practices behind the scenes.
Having said this, I wish the article had gone more into depth about the story behind the charges and had given examples for people who might not have had prior knowledge pre-reading the article. I knew what the author was talking about but other people may not have had an idea of what breeding problems there are in the world of show dogs. I think this is an important topic and the article did not quite do it justice. I realize that the contreversy wasn't the only point of the article but the author mentioned it in the header and really should have given a more detailed explanation of the contreversy.
After reading this article I was glad to see that this situation was finally coming to light. I have heard of such breeding malpractices with high class show dogs before but never have I seen it properly publicized. I think it is ridiculous that people in-breed dogs to enhance desirable traits to the detriment of each individual dog. It's not healthy and disgusting that people would do that for profit. Not only this, but breeders often breed to exaggerate a typical characteristic of a breed, like they do with horses, resulting often times in an unhealthy animal (think pugs who have been bred over the years to have increasingly 'squashed' faces with the result that many of them have breathing difficulties). I was also glad to read in the article that the RSPCA, Pedigree and BBC stopped supporting the Crufts Dog Show after the expose was released on the unhealthy breeding practices behind the scenes.
Having said this, I wish the article had gone more into depth about the story behind the charges and had given examples for people who might not have had prior knowledge pre-reading the article. I knew what the author was talking about but other people may not have had an idea of what breeding problems there are in the world of show dogs. I think this is an important topic and the article did not quite do it justice. I realize that the contreversy wasn't the only point of the article but the author mentioned it in the header and really should have given a more detailed explanation of the contreversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
