Death and the Media.

Target: Anybody that watches the news on a regular basis.

This is not the blog I have been meaning to write since about two days after the last one but I've been writing a poem (I'm an English major, we do that sometime, don't worry you'll never have to read it) lately that seems to have turned into a rant against the twenty four hour media cycle in iambic pentameter. As I was moving along with the poem, I noted that death is everywhere in the news these days but then I said it is only presented in tiny segments. And after I finished the neat lines and made sure I had my rhyme scheme together I stopped and though, "oh shit, I've talked myself into a corner. How can death be everywhere on TV and still be compressed into sound bites and video clips?"

And then it hit me: this is a problem. I would say "the" problem but we all know damn well that I am not going to unlock the key dysfunction with 21st century media. One problem (and I think a major one) revolves around this idea, however: although death pervades modern media, little or no context is given, we don't get any reflection (unless you count pointing the finger and playing political games). When was the last time you were able to take a moment of silence following a death without spending it contemplating the political maneuvering that must have motivated whatever person just called for the moment? It's been quite a damn long time for me. Beyond that, when was the last time any body even thought to take a moment of silence?

But that isn't my point. I'm not telling people they have to stop and think every time they find out somebody got shot from the evening news. I do think however that the news should be responsible enough to spend a moment reflecting on the significance of the lost lives that they report on even when that life didn't belong to fucking Michael "Probably fiddled with little boys but now that he's dead we're all bat shit crazy about him" Jackson.

Seriously, news is not supposed to be entertaining and I don't even think it needs to be politically motivated. But of course, the only time something important is ever going to be covered is if somebody gives it a political spin and yells at you about it. If naked or nearly naked women/famous people are not involved or nobody is foaming at the mouth, sending spittle flying all over their desk with righteous fury, nobody wants to pay any attention. Which is why every solemn moment of reflection over the death of somebody that didn't make shitty music or spend lots and lots of money to enjoy a political career during which they probably didn't get much done, would lose precious ratings for the news channel that included such an idiotic notion while their competitors took the brainy route and got past the death in a car accident (unless there was alcohol involved because that would require a nice little preachy moment afterward) in the thirty seconds they were supposed to and moved on to the next tramp flashing her pussy for the cameras.

On the other hand, what could anybody do about this? They can't spend any more time than they already do focusing on death and they definitely can't start thinking about the significance of those deaths, even thinking about it enough to write this blog makes me sick to my stomach. People don't really need any more negative shit on TV, right? Thirty seconds of death crammed in between whatever political nonsense is happening is already a lot to deal with after a long day, the only reason some of us still feel the need to get up in the morning is because the nice folks at the nightly news throw us all a bone and ramble about sports and the weather for a while in between real news stories. The really great thing about those topics (other than the fact that they are constant and a lot of people care about them so they keep the ratings up) is no matter how shitty the local sports team did this afternoon and no matter how much snow is going to be fucking with your commute in the morning, there is always hope that things are going to get better on the weather and sports front. Even the political arena offers the occasional ray of sunshine when a bill gets passed that you've been hoping for since you were thirteen and realized you had opinions.

It's too bad when somebody falls down dead for no apparent reason or gets shot in a war zone or loses a battle with cancer there is no hope of a reversal. There is no good trade to improve your teams chances and there is no warm air front that is going to get you to work on time tomorrow. And the only thing any of us can do is bare with it but the least we could do instead of jockeying for political position or carting Michael's corpse around the country is try to prevent the next one.

Why a Cigar is Never Just a Cigar

Target: Anybody that does not study literature or has ever wondered why people who do pay so much attention to nit-noid details.

Freud once suggested, in a wry, old man's voice that "sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And this is absolutely true... In psychology. It is never true in literature and I imagine people wonder why that is.

Nobody has ever asked me this question but I remember sitting in high school surrounded by people who I think would have loved an answer. I also remember wondering how any teacher could stand at the front of a room with twenty five faces staring up (if he happened to have their attention) at him and never wonder why twenty of those faces demonstrated a lost and bewildered expression as he went on about the significance of a conk shell to a bunch of stranded children. It always made sense to me and I recognized the few other students who also got it but I wonder what it would have taken for the whole room to be in on it. Of course, I am not so much of an idealist to really imagine that possible but I think a simple explanation of why English Majors--which I mean to be anybody that reads literature for things like theme, symbolism, figurative language, etc.--do what they do would have really helped people not hate the subject.

So, what do I think the reason is? The long and the short of it for me is that (1)language leads inevitably to questions and (2)literature is controlled and manipulated language. But does language always lead to questions? It's possible to make a statement that does not leave any ambiguity, right? I don't think there is but why don't we try. I'm going to grab a book and choose any line and see what questions present themselves.

The closest book at hand happens to be a text book "The Norton Anthology: American Literature 1820-1865" and I turned to the first page of an excerpt from Moby Dick. The novel starts with the famous line, "Call me Ishmael." You might think there isn't much to this beyond the obvious: the narrator is named Ishmael. But who is he other than that? Where is he from? Ishmael isn't a common name. Which also begs the question, when is he from? Is there a reason for his ambiguity? He doesn't say concretely that his name is Ishmael, that's just what he wants you to call him that.

Three words and a handful of questions. Melville continues, "Some years ago--nevermind how long precisely--having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." You can imagine how many more questions you can ask of this.

Why is this relevent, though? So, language might lead to questions, why does that mean English teachers everywhere have to stretch everything so far? Why can't the cigar or conk shell or what have you just be whatever it is? The reason for this lies in the second argument above: Literature is language controlled and manipulated to tell a story. But that story goes deeper than the plot because if it didn't nobody would read it. Initially that means character development and the emotional arc(s) that gives the plot meaning. And this is where the symbolism and tone and metaphors come in. When an author puts the cigar into her story (or emphasizes it in a non-fiction work) she expects it to bring certain things to your mind. A cigar has certain connotations and cultural significance. For instance, when I think of a cigar I think of a movie from when I was a kid called "All Dogs Go to Heaven" where the villain-dog wore a business suit and smoked a huge cigar. And I bring this mental image to a text. Obviously the author might not expect this exact image but she understands the general effect it will have on you.

So then, the real goal of a close reading of a text (which is what English majors do) is to get as much into the story as we possibly can. By reading (no pun intended) into the connotations and symbolism and figurative language (metaphors and similes) we can develop a more complete understanding of the story including the characters, plot and philosophy therein.