I was annoyed by "The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture." While I thought the discussions of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis were sometimes enlightening, the editors were just plain wrong about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong. And frankly, though I don't like the guy myself, I think it's unfair to lump Trump with Jessica Simpson. And could they not have mentioned a single admirable female icon? Must we have Paris Hilton always popping up? What about Mia Hamm? (Okay. She's not Elvis, but she had her day as icon . . . )
What did you all think?
19 comments:
"The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture" offered some good and bad in my opinion. I was greatly annoyed when reading about sport icons. While he provides a couple of examples of icons that messed up somewhere along the road, such as Darryl Strawberry, Barry Bonds, and Kobe Bryant; but what about athletes like Cal Ripken Jr., Peyton Manning, and Michael Jordan? These are just a few athletes who have an icon apperance and donate generous amounts to money to charities across the country. I strongly disagree with the statement “it isn’t a good time for sports heroes, whos performance and pay may be better than ever, but whose images aren’t doing so well”. I think there are plenty of icon athletes who have great images, but he is just finding ones who have tainted their image.
While I disagree with the views on sports icons, I found his views of an interactive society to be interesting. I think the mass interaction we now have with movie stars and other savvy celebrities does indeed affect people. After watching a “The Simple Life” and seeing the behavior of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie, I thought of how many girls I know that think its okay to act the same. I agree with Signs in that shows like “The Simple Life” make people feel like it is acceptable to act the way the stars do in the show, ultimately giving people the notion that they are larger than live as if they are stars.
Didnt see a post blog for last class 9/10...?
Interesting part of class was when we talked about the Ricki Lake show. We discussed how the 1-800-GO-RICKI call in makes for a young, less educated, less/under employed guests and audience. While I agree that this is true to an extent, but what about shows like American Idol. It is the same call in technique that more people participate in than the presidential election. Would you go as far to say that these voters are young, uneducated, and unemployed? I wouldn’t say that a call in line makes a show anymore trashy, it is the contents of the show that attract the trashy callers.
I agree to an extent with pk that the people who watch certain televisions show are the reason that a certain show is trashy or not. For example i dont know many well educated people or are in the process of being educated, watch shows like jerry springer or Ricki Lake on a regular basis. On the other hand i have met some people who have pretty much given up on their education and do watch some trashy television shows such as Jerry Springer.
Now, im not saying that people who are uneducated are trashy people. But maybe because these uneducated people have not been exposed to higher forms of "art" -which i use loosley- or entertainment, dont know any better, and may believe that jerry springer is some of the best television entertainment on television today.
Another comment i had about the class was about American Idol. People have their own opinions about American Idol, but peronally i dont think its a very entertaining show, i can not deny that it is an incredibly popular show, and is definatley a tv force to be reconed with. But I dont believe it is that special to cover, or sing someone elses song in front of thousands of people. It's almost like kareoke. And the fact that some people in class were saying things like "lay off American idol, its a good show" i find a bit silly. I think it is a good discussion topic to debate, especially with such a diverse class.
I also thought that it was interesting in class when we talked about the different ways that talk shows choose their guests. Donahue carefully picks out guests, while Ricki Lake puts on the screen, “Hate your boyfriend? Call 1-800-Go-Ricki." This separates the trash from the insightful talk shows. You know when one selects his guests the way Ricki Lake does, you are going to end up with a lower class and rowdy group who are just looking for a few minutes of fame.
After reading "The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture" I agree when he says "Americans are embracing anti-icons whom they at once can identify with and despise." I agreed with this statement after watching an episode of the Simple Life, which I happened to enjoy watching. It's entertaining to watch Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie makes fools of themselves because they don't know basic household skills. It even gives you a chance to relate to them about times when you didn't know something or embarrassed yourself. You can't help to laugh at their ridiculous comments; however, I think girls watching the show should know that not all of their behavior is appropriate and most of it is an act for television.
When I read "The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture" I thought that it was interesting how it talked about how ppl become icons like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe.
It's really enteresting and impressive how Elvis with his "sexual" moves captivated millions of fans, mostly women, throughout his short life-time. He is known to be the "modern Dionysus". Also, how Marilyn acted as the shy, conservative girl compared to Hayworth and Harlow; the funny thing is- that is why she stood out from the crowd and ppl started to remember her and recognize her. Her most memorable moment is when her dress flew up and she just laughed about it, innocently.
However, I also disliked the fact that they talked about Donald Trump and Jessica Simpson as if they were in the same category or something. Donald is completely different than Jessica. Jessica was never truly famous until she started doing the "Newlyweds" on MTV. However, even now she's not as famous as she once was. Her last album didn't receive any good reviews. Donald, however, is a real state developer that uses his fame "wisely" by, in turn, making more money by exposing himself more, like his show "The Apprentice" his book.
Maria A.
I agree with Kelly's statement in that TV hosts are bound to get a lower-class audience to attend their show when they just have a phone number for ppl to call. I mean, you dont see Oprah giving out her phone number.
The reason of why this happens, it is because anyone that has access to a phone can call and be on the show. The higher-class people dont usually call because they dont want to tell their life story in front of millions of people and be embarrassed for the rest of their lives, they feel a need to protect their reputation. Which is clearly understandable. However, the lower-class people dont have a reputation and those are the ones that end up calling in the end.
Maria A.
In the reading "The Mythic characters of popular culture" I agree with PK that the author is just finding athletes with bad reputations, or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are substantially more athletes in the world who have a good image and portray healthy life styles than those who have had some infractions- but then again can you really blame them there human beings just like us and no one is perfect. Also the author is talking about just a few major American sports figures, and does not even seem to acknowledge the fact that there are other countries in the world who have sports figures who are very prominent people in their societies.
There was a theme that i picked up on that seemed to say that, heroes and icons are "dead"-that there is no longer idols to look up at and strive to be like. Then again society has become increasingly more and more free and liberal, which allows people to be their own persons. There was a line that said "homer.. can make anyone feel smooth and sophisticated" might hint at the fact television is trying to make people feel better about them selves, so they continue watching. As the cliche goes, "At least i'm not that guy"
There was no post class blog so I'm just going to write it here.
I found our discussion about American Idol to be extremely fascinating because it made a big point about our society and the values everyone holds. Personally, I do not see what all the hype is about this show. I've never been one to watch it religiously, but I have definitely watched enough episodes to say that I don't think it is that great. The only part I enjoy is the beginning because you get to watch the people who are crazy or have awful voices.
I just found it shocking to see how many people watch this show and the amount of votes they get. Its kind of sad that we can't get people to vote for president, yet millions are voting for the next American Idol. It really show how much an impact that television has on the world.
The editor of "The mythic characters of popular culture" illustrated that American icons are no longer exist and only left with people who are described as "comtemptible anti-icons". he also offered detailed informations about great icons (such as elvis and Monroe)in the past which help me to see the differences between "great icons" and "anti-icons". However, his unreasonable and awful interpretation of Tiger woods and Lance amstrong made me so upset. He said "The measure of their success is made by how many product endorsements they get" which I absolutely disagree with. He should have used better examples to make his point like celebrities who get profits and endorsements from their natural looks. Not professional athletes who worked hard to achieve their own goals.
The editor of "The mythic characters of popular culture" illustrated that American icons are no longer exist and only left with people who are described as "comtemptible anti-icons". he also offered detailed informations about great icons (such as elvis and Monroe)in the past which help me to see the differences between "great icons" and "anti-icons". However, his unreasonable and awful interpretation of Tiger woods and Lance amstrong made me so upset. He said "The measure of their success is made by how many product endorsements they get" which I absolutely disagree with. He should have used better examples to make his point; such as celebrities who get profits and endorsements from their natural looks. Not professional athletes who worked hard to achieve their own goals.
In this chapter, "The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture", I felt it really fluctuated between having good and bad comments about american icons. I strongly disagreed with some of his opinions, and other times strongly agreed. For example, as much as I dislike Donald Trump, he does not deserve to be lumped in the same category as Jessica Simpson and the Hilton sisters. He is an entrepreneur, an author, television star, and well known business man. He has accomplished a lot, including respect. On the other hand Jessica Simpson and the Hilton sisters definitely have not gained respect from people, nor are they famous for having real talent. Jessica Simpson only became famous from her reality tv show in which she showed everyone her ditzy side, and her music never made it big. As for the Hilton sisters, all I have to say is between Paris's sex tape and their outrageous behavior, they certainly do not gain respect from people.
The reading goes on to talk about Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. I think they are both great icons, but did not do nearly as much as Martin Luther King Jr. or Albert Einstein. I find it kind of funny how there is only one sentence on Martin Luther King Jr. and Albert Einstein, but there is three pages on Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.
I did agree with his comments about how good icons are much harder to find nowadays. Also how the new cultural characters are not constructed from the stuff of America's social and political history, but instead from its nature as a consumer culture. He goes on to explain that they are constructed for one purpose only and that is to pitch the product. (pg 727) I agree with all of this because I think there is more nonsense on TV and shows such as Real World are extremely popular. They are on TV not to make an impact on people or help viewers, but instead because they bring in money. These normal people on Real World are now becoming icons for young teens in the world, but in the reality these people are in no position to be good icons for young teenagers.
I swear I see Elvis every year at my hometown fair. I would say that he is an icon that will keep going on and on through generations. His image seems to pop up everywhere, he image is used in cartoons, movies, and television shows. I remember not knowing whom Elvis was when growing up but Jesse a character on "Full House" always referred to him and obsessed over him. I never knew Elvis life story of how he went from truck driver to music icon. He was a normal person before his super stardom which is why I think he is looked at as a internally icon. Thinking back on it now I knew who Elvis was before I ever heard a song or saw a movie.
I thought the examples used were appropriate because that is who are youth looks up too. I know it is not the greatest icons to look up to but it is who is in the spotlight. Jessica Simpson and Pairs Hilton have changed how young girls act. I know many people may disagree but to many times when going out to parties and other after class Rollins events there are girls dancing on bars, drinking loads of alcohol. I wonder if it were not for icons that portray partying and being out of control if some of the girls would act that way in public.
I thought it was interesting about how guest were found for different talk show. I think that the 1-800 numbers was a brilliant idea because it finds people who want to be on television. With the 1-800 number they also can fill the seats as well. I thought it was funny when we talked about the 1-800 numbers. I remember as a kid prank calling the 1-800-jerry number for a few laughs. My cousin and I would find it amazing to here what different topics were on the number. It was one of the message machines that had several different options such as hit 1 to find out who the babies daddy is, press 2 to see if your cheating with your best friends wife, and so on. It is just something that made me laugh in class.
I think the reading was able to shed some light on the path our society is stating to head down. That being said there are some thing I did not agree with in it. I did not think that Trump deserves to be mentioned in any way with Jessica Simpson. I mean yes, trump did start his own TV show but in the end he wasn’t putting on an act, that’s what he is really like, he is a diehard business man and just because the way has conducted himself while building a fortune seems comical to us, dose not earn him a spot right next to an airhead blond who can sing. Jessica Simpson is ruining out societies views of what is ok, she is showing girls that as long as you look good you can act however you want and it will be ok because at the end of the day, well hey, everyone wonders how you made it through college and you have to wake up in the morning to go shoot a Cover Girl commercial.
I did not only disagree with the ideas and values of the passage "The Mythic Characters of Popular Culture", but it almsot angered me. This guy took his opinions and tried to force them on the reader as the truth. Saying that Ozzy Osbourne is a 2nd rate rockstar is more than harsh. Maybe he does not apprciate what Ozzy has done with his life, but many people view him as a legend, and someone who changed music forever. I personally do not even like Ozzy's music but i have enough respect and dignity to not trash him in a essay. Do not even get me started on the opinions of sports stars this writer talked about. He chose examples of some athletes who have had trouble in their lives. This writer said nothing about the hundreds of athletes who donated time and money to the hurricane relife foundation, or the hundreds of athletes who donate time and money to the jimmy fund and other charities. The opinions of this writer are twisted and pessimistic and begs the question "Who ever said celebrities had to be perfect"
I'm going to have to agree with the original post on this:
I found this essay a little annoying. Yes, I realize that the title is 'mythic characters' which already gives away his standpoint on this. What really stood out to me was his comment, "It isn't a good time for sports heroes". It downgrades many sports icons that have affected so many (especially younger) people. But the sad thing is though, I can't disagree with him. It's what 'pop culture' has come down to and it's a really unfortunate thing.
One point I really like that he makes is how icons, that are really worth more than a multi-million dollar endorsement (i.e. George Washington) have long been forgotten. If there is no commercial value behind the icon, then who is going to care?
Commenting on what O' Keefe said: I was originally going to comment on the whole 10 sentences before the last one, but...
"At least I'm not that guy" That statement could not be any more true. That seems to be the reality of it at the end of the day.
post class blog
I agree from a personal perspective that using "hate your boyfriend? call 1-800-go ricky". It seems morally wrong to lower the standards of television to attract a less educated, younger and more curious crowd. But from a business perspective it makes total sense. Why not target young america? they are the future. Maybe it is not just the quality of the television shows, or the "trash TV" that is the problem with our culture, maybe it is the idea behind the shows that reveals people will sacrafice morals for bussiness success
Post a Comment