#experimental essay

[nearzeroblog]

Life Is Memory Forward

David Hofstadter, in I Am a Strange Loop, asks whether a mosquito uses signs. The question struck me as absurd—not because it’s silly, but because it misunderstands something fundamental. Mosquitoes don’t need signs; they have object orientation. They are oriented toward a world built into them by nature. In a way, they are memory in motion. Life doesn’t need to “recall” in the way a human does…

Life Is Memory Forward

[mariastadnicka]

Otherhood

Last time my brother and I talked poetry, we ended up

arguing. His five-year old daughter found my book easy

to read, though it had a major flaw. No pictures. It made

everyone rather uncomfortable. Having to explain words

like ‘deluge’, ‘carnal’, ‘empiric’ without visual clues, it is

beyond my fatherly competency, he said. I often thought

that …Plus, he added, each time you write about me,…

View On WordPress

[xavieralexander1980]

A Guideline to Reading My Work and Generally Blowhard Post About Poets, Activism, and Performance Art

(Written for Facebook were I post usually)

(Warning, I was drinking coffee and just started writing to clarify some things. It has turned out to be an EXTREMELY LONG post. You might want to visit later if you care and have the time):

--I stared into the sun one time for three or four hours. For a long while afterwards there was a floating blue and red dot or floater in my field of vision, but my eyes adjusted. It's kind of a miracle that I can see at all. I completely destroyed my macula. That is why you often see mistakes in punctuation. I think it is a comma when it is a period. I was delusional when I stared at the sun.

--I started writing poetry at 15 in 1995. In 2008, I branched out to poetry films in grad school, which you can see those films on my page, Caruso Films. That is a long time of writing only poetry.

--After reading David Foster Wallace in 2011, I branched out into nonfiction, memoir, and experimental essays. Some of those essays have been published in journals, such as "Sugar Mule" and "And/Or". However, it has only been 5 years of truly writing prose, so if you think my prose is weird or rough or shaky, it is because I am an amateur experimental essayist.

--In poetry and experimental writing, there has to be an entry point into the author's style. Every day if you are following any of this, I am experimenting. One thing I notice is that I try to be as clear as a fucking idiot who is grasping for words in my prose. I don't want you to think I am being condescending at all. Or that everything I write is somehow profound. Because it isn't usually: Being profound or not, after a while, I have learned, in writing is all the same. In learning the craft of writing, writers say that you have to "earn" interesting and profound points and ideas. There is no shortcut in earning something, as you know. It is all doing and work hours.

--Writers usually don't show the world their work hours. What you see is the finished, polished product. In a sense, I don't see my writing as "nonfiction" in any conventional sense. Since this is Facebook, and it is like town hall square in olden days, I have always intended it to be performance art. I am a great admirer of performance art, such as spoken word, magic, jesters, busking, impromptu comedy, jazz, or even ballet. I see poetry as my strength, prose my weakness. At least, that is my opinion. I don't want to impose that, though. I notice people actually prefer my little blogs and essays. I also notice people prefer brevity, but here's the thing about that: this is all published, and can be perused by anyone on earth later. I don't hide my profile or any status updates.

--As an activist, which much of my writing is political, and I would argue Facebook, as a public forum, is all political and social dynamic, I have always enjoyed independent and maverick art and statements, such as Neil Young or Lou Reed or Emerson or Thoreau or just about any poet in World Literature. While poets have come in groups like the Beats or Romantics or Dadaists (the first punk rock artists), within those groups, there have always been individual and political differences between poets, such as Ginsberg and Kerouac, or Byron and Wordsworth, or Marcel DuChamp and Tristan Tzara. I try to allude to poets and literature I admire, btw. Here is a compendium: (I sort of went hogwild. Skip for time sake.) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Welsh maverick and alcoholic prodigy, Dylan Thomas, my first love. To know more about his style and who he is, see Gerard Manley Hopkins and John Donne, both Protestant ministers.

2. I prefer World Literature. a. Russian poets: Brodsky, Mayakovsky, Mendlestam, Voznesensky, and Pushkin (Shakespeare of Russia). b. Germanic, Polish, Eastern European and Jewish: Goethe (Shakespeare of Germanic Literature), Paul Celan, Maria Wisława Anna Szymborska, Edmond Jabes are good starting points. c. Western European poets come in schools: French Symbolists (who invented free verse and influenced TS Eliot), Surrealists, Dadaists and Futurists (who opened poetry to all the arts), and British poets you know. d. Although not technically World Lit, American Southern Poets are not discussed near enough: John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, Robert Penn Warren are like the Willie Nelsons and Johnny Cashes of the South.

3. American Schools and Poets I would recommend: John Cage (John Lennon and Yoko Ono), David Antin (who didn't write but spoke all of his poetry and recorded it), Language School, and Black Mountain School.

4. For Queer poets: Allen Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, Jack Spicer, are the big guys. Lesbian poets: you should know are Sappho and Adrienne Rich. Just talk to your gay and lesbian friends about poets they like.

5. For Black and African lit, "Negritude" school, see amiri baraka and Aime Cesaire, who are, to me, very important for their poetic styles. Check out your local Spoken Word show. There are a million things going on.

6. I don't even know where to begin with Asian Literature. Haiku poet Basho and Korean poet Yi Sang are two big poets. In China, poetry was the literature of the scholar class. Prose wasn't invented until 1900 and it was considered pulp. I would refer you to my Professor Walter K. Lew for all Asian and Buddhist Literature. Lao Tzu is phenomenal, in so many ways. From religion to spirituality to poetry, it is all one and the same.

7. Spanish poets I like are Chilean Poet Pablo Neruda (His sonnets are the best love poems), Brazilian Poet Carlos Drummond de Andrade, and to know these poets, check out Federico Garcia Lorca from Spain. It doesn't hurt to know the first novelist Cervantes, who birthed the modern novel, Don Quixote. I like the 1940s translation by Samuel Putnam. Critic (Big Blowhard of English Lit) Harold Bloom considered Cervantes the only equal to Shakespeare, who both were writing at the same time (and didn't know about each other).

8. Middle Eastern and Persian poets: Rumi, Ghalib (who wrote ghazals, one of my favorite forms). I can't say I am too familiar with Contemporary Middle Eastern poets, but you come across them in literary journals. See the Koran, as well.

9. For Feminist poets, see Anne Sexton, HD, Gertrude Stein, Diane Wakowski, and Adrienne Rich, again, to name a few. Although not a poet, see Renaissance Italian writer, Christine de Pizan, and her fictional story, "The Book of the City of Ladies", which birthed Feminist Literature.

10. The Bible, Torah, Tao Te Ching, Koran, Gnostic Judaic and Christian Books, Bhagavad Gita , Vedas and Upanishads, and Homer, (Most Buddhist Literature was orally passed down but all we have is prose versions. Except certain Chinese Buddhist Schools: See Haiku and Renga forms): all of which is technically poetry. And that is a different entry point or lens into those important works. I think in this day of organized religion it is very important to remember that spiritual texts and myths were written as poetry, and translated into all languages. People have noted some of my religious views, but I do so from poetry.

(I don't know why I just gave you a compendium of poets and authors. I got excited and took a trip down memory lane. I prefer World Literature translations. I just have always gravitated toward them and learning about the world through their poets.)

In case you don't want to go through all of World Literature, here are anthologies I would recommend: 1. Norton Anthologies, of course. 2. Poems For the Millennium by Jerome Rothenberg and Pierre Joris (Most of the poets I mentioned can be found in the first two volumes and it is a great starting off point). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Personally, I have always enjoyed anthologies and literary journals over individual poets. I enjoy poems over poets, generally speaking. The best guide to literary journals is New Pages.com. Everything from experimental writing to traditional writing can be found there. The big thing now or in the last few years is "hybrid' writing, which is basically not identifying the style of writing and blending all the styles. So just to be obvious, my Facebook page could be quote hybrid. The other big thing is a more "personal style". To paraphrase Frank O Hara, why write a poem when you can just call your friend on the telephone?

--My father has told me a million times that he doesn't get my poetry. And my father is more intelligent than I am. He is a doctor. I really don't have an answer or explanation. I read poetry like I read an article in the Washington Post. I read poetry on the toilet. I try not to "comprehend" it. Sure there are different ways to analyze it, and there are scholars who do that all day long. I have done that and can do that. But the difference is kinda like hearing "Kind of Blue" and studying it. I just appreciate the album, I don't know Jazz Theory. Most of the time, I just feel or listen to poetry. School and scholarship is the time and place to scan, do close readings, and theorize poetry, in my opinion. I am not a scholar. I am not a critic. I am an artist. I create. Most of theory and criticism stifles me. And I would recommend both scholarship and theory for any artist, but I wouldn't bog myself too much, not until you are interested in it. There are people who have been doing that all their life. And so much more power to them.

--Last point: I have Bipolar Disorder. I have coped with this illness all my life. Mental illness is a debilitating illness in the sense of functioning in conventional society. You know someone who has a mental illness, beside me. And not much is truly understood about mental illness. David Foster Wallace hung himself due to chronic depression, and he is arguably the greatest nonfiction writer in the last twenty years. Dostoevsky suffered from fits of seizures in which he had profound revelations. Hemingway shot himself due to alcoholism and some underlying mental illness. Sylvia Plath committed suicide due to a mental illness and I believe it was un-diagnosed bipolar disorder (I could be wrong). Emily Dickinson suffered from agoraphobia and stayed home for most of her life. While I am not saying I am like those geniuses, and it is a misnomer to think that everyone with a mental illness is an artist or genius, I bring it up because artists I admire had mental illnesses. The point is to show that sometimes society is wrong about things, as you know. Blacks, immigrants, queer folk, women, veterans, homeless people, poor people, and virtually every marginalized group I can think of society has been wrong about. And many of these marginalized people are starting to come out of the closets and say, guess what, society doesn't quite get me. And they are doing so in art and argument.

"In conclusion," LOL, these are guidelines and entry points for readers. For the most part, I believe people don't care actually. But neither do I most of the time. I also have been drinking coffee this morning and I get rolling with thoughts, which explains the length of this post. LOL.

[albdamnednotphilosophein]

Zero and Nothing

The following is an experiment in writing to convey information to an audience in an intelligible and organic fashion. The idea is to create a dichotomy between what has been read and the reader. I seek nothing more then to establish a conversation and humbly ask for your cooperation. Thank You.   -Al B.

Zero and Nothing

To begin, remove all elephants from your vicinity  (Gently please!)

Regardless of who you are, what you are, where you are, when you are, why you are or how you are, you can ask a simple question, “are there any elephants around me?” To clarify some of the ambiguity in this question here are some details. By “around” I mean the immediate vicinity to which you are able to absorb a majority of the details. By “elephants” I do mean the large land mammals from Africa and Asia that are known for their empathy and intelligence. And finally, by “me” I mean the self asking the question. For example, if people were listening to this in a conference, they could ask, “Are there any elephants in the room?”

Is it fair then to make the assertion that, “there are no elephants in the room,” based on the answer to the previous question? The next thing to be asked is, “Are you sure?” I am not trying to loop you in any kind of semantically tangential or brilliant legalese. This question is also not meant to be reviewed with an absolute certainty but concerns whether there is enough confidence to put down money on it, if the option were available. If this is the case, the question ultimately becomes, “are you sure there are no elephants in the room?”

If you answered yes to the previous question, I would like to investigate some the ramifications and inconsistencies with this point of view, the first of which is the self. To begin to understand the self, does it not first require method(s) of intake for information? For humans, are these not traditionally called the senses? Think of perceiving within a single room adorned with for plain walls and with zero allowances for outside light’s admission into this room. In the center of this room is a small table with a lit candle. The light from the candle is sufficient to view the entire area of the room. Assuming you are capable, would you be able to see the area around you while the candle is lit?

Once sensed, is this information not processed into memory organized by inferred categories? Otherwise, what is to give the distinction between the sun and the yellow light at a traffic signal? Assuming you can see the room around you while the candle is lit, can you then start inferring about all that data that have been presented to you and organize that data into distinct meaning? Is this meaning most often thought of as language? Then what do you see when the candle burns its way down until the light finally ceases entirely?

If you are being consistent with the previous answer of “there are no elephants in the room,” then this answer must surely be “I see nothing.” Now imagine a person wearing a traditional tuxedo. This person is dressed for a real black tie affair. Now examine the person’s pants. You wouldn’t say, “the person is wearing no pants” but would you instead say something more like, “the person is wearing black pants?” In regards to the room with the brunt out candle, wouldn’t it be correct to say that you are seeing an encompassing darkness? Isn’t another name for this encompassing darkness simply called pitch black?

If light is perceived through the sense of sight, then colors and shades are sensations of some light? Black is also perceived in this way and is able to interact with the other colors in a variety of ways and it also has certain properties. If you were to quantify the experience of black would it be zero photons (units of light) being registered and any other color’s experience would be one or more photons being detected instead?

If your answer to this is yes, would it not be fair to revise the previous statement of, “there are no elephants in the room” to the accurate statement, “there are zero elephants in the room?” Before you get all riled up and accuse me of being a sophist ask yourself, “Is there a difference between the two?” In the realm of propositional logic there exist four kinds of categorical propositions: “All S are P,” “No S are P,” “Some S are P,” and “Some S are not P.” While “there are no elephants in the room,” clearly falls in to the “No S are P,” but does “there are zero elephants in the room,” also fit in the same category?

Black is zero photons being perceived, does it register in the mind the same as other colors? Does it give the mind the ability to recognize and build inferences from it? Is this process the same as with the other colors perceived? If those previous questions were answered with a yes, then isn’t black something? If it is something, is it false that it is nothing? Is it not necessary that when, “Some S are P” is true that, “No S are P” must be false? Therefore, logic demands that if “there are zero (some) elephants in the room” then it is “false that there are no elephants in the room.”

Now let that settle in your mind

The conclusion of zero’s somethingness is something that can bring about a great deal of dissonance when compared to the rest of our body of knowledge. To resolve this dissonance into harmony would it be shrewd then to look at the nature of zero and the way we perceive any kind of thing? And to follow up with that thought, since we need to use our senses to examine the nature of any kind of thing would it not make sense to start off understanding the ways of our perception first? This brings us to the most plain and difficult question, what is perception?

            While the overall process becomes vastly complex with many sub-processes to it, is it possible to think of perception as simply having a particular kind of awareness? Thinking of perception as a kind of awareness necessitates either we have always been aware of the perception or that a method of awareness detection is being realized. Does the idea of perpetual perception match your experiences of perception? If it is not the case that we have perpetual perception and we do perceive, is it then false that we have no perception detectors?

            The detectors of perception, as mentioned before, have traditionally been called the senses. Do humans, unless they have a specific reason to do otherwise, sense in five general kinds of perception? And are these senses are sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch? While it is easy to think of a particular part of the body as being the source of the perception (ex: eyes for sight or ears for sound), isn’t fair to say that the perception detectors actually run all the way to a central process and in fact are appendages of this central process?

            Can these appendages then be viewed as the ways of intake for the central process? Incoming detection enters the central process and is shaped and molded by the process’ structure. The result of this process is inferred meaning of what has been detected. For example: A group of yellow has been detected, it is evenly grouped with a cessation of yellow at an equal distance away from the center of the mass of yellow. Is this the sun or a yellow traffic signal? Isn’t it fortunate then that you have a wealth of other stimuli to sort out the differences between two yellow circles? While the immensity of the data is hard to describe concisely, the central process is capable of making similar and dissimilar distinctions between the various outputs. This is because the processed input shapes the central process while being processed. Since the detector appendages are simply receiving different kind of impressions to process, the central process is only dealing with one kind of substance, impressions. How else could one process, process different kind of things?

            If this is the case, how does falsehood arise? It seems almost self-evident that falsehood is in the world, isn’t it? Optical illusions, magic, and fashion all scream falsehood but where does it come from? After all, all of the data are either sensation or the organization of sensation, can falsehood be found in either of these? For a long time man has been critical of his senses. From the time of the ancient Greeks up to modern times, we have relied on reason over the senses to find truth. However, wouldn’t it be fair to examine the sense detector’s reliability again? When they are functioning, they are receiving information at a rate equal or greater to zero. Where is the false information here?

            While this makes theoretical sense you can be led to think, “What about the raving madman lost in hallucination?” If the sense data are to be held as true, could we put equal faith in the processed inference? Isn’t that inference the very problem of the madman? A person lost in these kinds of delusion could be schizophrenic, but ultimately there was a reason for the sensation to occur. This would mean all the sensation detected is true. For this not to be the case, ask yourself if there was a time you ever experienced a false sensation while not it being a false inference?

            If this is the case then is all the information humans sense true and does falsehood then arises from inferences? This realization then pulls us to the question, “If the composite of some true sensation is the totality of information processed, how then can we come to an impression of falsehood?” Remember that there is a true reason for everything sensed. However, there are more then two things that are green and more then two things taste sweet. This requires us to rely on the total wealth of the experience to determine what we are dealing with, would it not?

            This experience could be thought of as the seeming of the conjunction of the five senses. Is it fair to then say that we do not actually have direct interaction with an experience but with its seeming? This seeming then can be thought of as proceeding through time, if this is the case does the seeming not begin like a filament of experience? Examination of this filament could give an “impression” of patterns. This “impression” could be then compared to other filament’s patterns or the same filament at another point of it. Is this how we build analogies?

            For example, if we were examining a section of a filament that possessed a pattern [3,5,7] in it and then comparing it to a pattern of progressing odd numbers [1,3,5,7,9] could you be led to believe that the [3,5,7] section is part of another progression of odd numbers? Now if the there was further investigation of the first filament and you were able to realize additional numbers to the pattern’s set, which are [1,2,3,5,7,11], your previous conclusion of the sameness between the sets was incorrect. In fact this set contains all prime numbers. At this point would all false information be reducible to making a mistake in recognizing patterns?

            The only question to this is then how did these mistakes arise? Ultimately, it is a failure to rectify two separate pieces of information held as true. However, where does this failure arise? When examining the two sets, the known and the unknown, the understanding of the known is believed to be fixed while the unknown is becoming fixed through the comparison to the known. However, is it possible to learn new things about a known? Is the boundary of the known less then fixed and easily adjustable when sensation demands it? Would this mean that when inquiring about a known pattern that it will only provide further true information about it? If this is the case, then the “falsehood” derives from the unknown. Treating an unknown like a known allows for a mistaken impression of “falsehood.” While this would also occur if you were treating an unknown as false, could it not be shown to be true later? Therefore, humans perceive some information that is always true, (or the false “no/none” equivalent) and can process undetermined information as if it is determined, with the potential for problems arising from it.

 Once grounded in the distinction of what is determined and what is undetermined, you can now apply what has been already acknowledged

 At this point you may be still left feeling, “what is the point?” After all, zero elephants in a room has just as much predictive capability as no elephants in a room, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be hasty to dismiss the differences between zero and nothing based on that account alone? Isn’t there more to be known then what will occur? That must lead you to the question, “can the zero tell me something that nothing cannot?

The first thing to examine under this line of thought is to focus on where zero comes from. As discussed before, humans receive “some true information” through the senses and another way viewing it that we receive “no false information” correct?  However, do we perceive either “false some information” or “true no information?” A person with a keen mind at this point would state that those two sources of information are less then determined by humans. How then are we able to describe what has been less then determined?

Would it be then required for this to be the case that either we do have information from those categorical propositions or that the “less then determined” propositions are ultimately grounded within a known? If the former is the case, from where does zero arise? Even with true knowledge about all, where would zero go? In the case of some, it is possible to arrange an all made out of some and firmly within all. For example, if you possess a basket of apples containing 10 red apples, could you be led to say, “all these apples are red?” This proposition ultimately is reducible to a type of language where “all these” is quantifiable to 10 apples at a particular moment of time. However, as is and within a closed system, does the “all” begin to seem like a universal?

In order to do this would someone need to simply raise the level of familiarity to the point where any other information is excluded? Doesn’t this closed system still exist solely and completely within the realm of something? If this is the case isn’t the “all” propositional information subject to the rules of the some propositional information (such as also being capable of being viewed as a false no proposition)? Along with the all information, could “some not” propositions also be treated in this way? If this is the case we are left with two expressions of truth but what of zero?

While “some” is often thought of as a grouping of things, in the way we are viewing perceived data would it then be more exact to say, “I see X amount of stimuli?” Wouldn’t this number, if it were more then one, essentially be an aggregate consisting of ones? Would it change the sum total of the aggregate if zero were to be added along with the ones? If this is true then zero has the potential to be a part of every single thing and yet unperceived. Would this then give zero an omnipresent position with all the information we have (which again falls in the true some proposition/false no proposition)?

This would seem troubling for a paper that spends a great deal of its time talking about zero. How can you distinguish something that adds zero value to a sum total of experience? Would adding more of something (and thus making an aggregate of ones) reveal any more of zero or would it be just as less then distinguished? However, examining certain things can still expose zero. How many objects are within a void, (This could be thought of mathematically as an empty set, [ ], which could be contrasted with a set like [0,1,2,3,4])? Defining the words “how” and “many” will clear up any ambiguity over this question. “How,” in this sense is requesting information on a thing’s quality, and the word “many” is specifying the nature of that quality to the thing’s quantity. This being the case, would the answer to the question then be, “there are zero objects in the void?”

Is the void nothing? While it can seem to be that way it is possible to derive information of a natural value, (zero) from it. If it is possible to derive a number from the void is it possible to derive one from the void as well? How many empty sets are here [ ]? This would mean it is possible to derive both numbers, as well as any aggregate, from a void. These numbers can then be built on and used to establish the variety of inferences that make up our life. However, is zero coming from the void then? In both cases the [ ] empty set was analyzed to generate the numbers. While the nature of the void is to be void, it appears to be full of zeros. Is it the case that while trying to capture the void we ended throwing the net back on ourselves (something) instead?

Is it not the case that in order to be void that it must be devoid “of some things?” Then would the void then lay beyond zero, with zero acting as behind adjacent between some and whatever lays beyond? This would finally allow us to give zero the definition as the minimum of some. Think of any situation you can involve some things, the smallest perceivable value is zero and the largest is some far off and less then determined number. Does the minimum and one lay in anything other then the “some” categorical proposition?

This would leave us with one form of true “some” knowledge, which can be view equally true as a false “no” knowledge and zero firmly grounded in something. The first concept that I would like to address now is the principal of non-contradiction. Simply put, “A” cannot be “not A.” On the surface it would make perfect sense and does make sense within the confines of a closed set residing in a “some” proposition. However, does it make sense without being qualified? While “A” (some) is capable of being detected as true, do you have any information, other then zero, in regards to “not A” being true? Is “not A” beyond the realm of true some? By its definitional nature of “not A” isn’t “not A” basically false some? We have zero information on the subject of false some (but only true some); therefore, wouldn’t the statement then be, “A cannot be not A” results with a less then determined truth-value?

Using this practice, could one also examine paradoxes in this way? Let’s try out the classic paradox of the liar. The Liar saying, “This statement is false” is the gist of the paradox. Couldn’t we proceed in the same fashion as the law of non-contradiction? We are examining two truths after all, the truth of the overall statement and the truth of the “false.” This false would be reducible to a less then defined truth value, which in turns converts the entire statement to a less then defined truth value. If a paradox is a collection of seemingly true statements that seem to contradict each other, where is the contradiction when an undefined statement is examined and accepted as it is?

 To Conclude

While it is important to realize the differences of zero and nothing, the most profound revelations are to be found in personal uses. If we live our lives without this distinction, we live our lives in a world that we build up a misplaced sense of grounding only to have it pulled out from under us. Our mind plays tricks on us, people deceive us, and the world is out to get us. Furthermore, in this distinction-less world we are able to focus our attention on what we are not with the mistaken perception that we are focusing on ourselves. When this happens, we feel we can eliminate what we are not and then we are free to be what we are. For example, “I do not want to go to school anymore” will tell you zero things about what you want to do. This ultimately still tells us something. And yet people will make actions based on this “don’t want.” Any action stemming from this thinking is ultimately groundless and devoid of reason. None of us wants that, do we?

[experimentalanimaion]

How is humour used in animated children TV shows and have the shows in general become more mature over time?

Matthew May

13009605

ANIM2015

When it comes to humour in animation, especially in animated TV shows, there seems to be a variety of ways one might go about this. In the past there where an abundance of shows that had there humour on the more silly side, of course it’s only natural that there be humour from something silly, but with shows like ‘Tom & Jerry’ and all ‘Hanna Barbera’ cartoons they would elaborate on this by including over the top slapstick and having gag related dialogue being said from one character to another, such as humorous insults or witty phrases.

These could be related back to very early television and films, such as films staring Charlie Chaplin, who is famous for his slapstick in films, actions back then where more important than ever due to films around the time unable to record audio so it would only make sense to over exaggerate actions in a way to convey humour. And it’s this type of humour we would see in shows like ‘Tom & Jerry’ whose main characters don’t talk but can convey humour from their actions, like facial expressions, body gestures or the over the top violence they inflict on each other. Thanks to animation in ‘Tom & Jerry’ they were able to go beyond basic slapstick and inflict damage to each other that in real life could potentially be fatal but in the show characters reactions where played out in humorous ways, such as the character becoming dizzy and seeing stars, giving out a funny yell when they are injured. Because it’s an animation the characters could easily get back up and keep on going even if an anvil landed on their head.

In ‘Hanna Barbera’ shows such as ‘Scoody Doo’ their source of humour did not focus entirely on slapstick humour but also included dialogue with characters portraying humour in that way. Scoody Doo himself would be considered funny with his dialogue due to how he pronounces each word with an ‘R’, and his best friend in the show ‘Shaggy’ is the one that normally say wise quaking jokes, but their actions also have a part in it as well since they are essentially the cowards of the group and humour is shown with them screaming in fright each time they see a ghost and would instantly run in the opposite direction.

In the 90’s shows like ‘Animaniacs’ and ‘Ren & Stimpy’ carried on with slapstick humour and witty dialogue. For both shows each episode was different, different setting with a different scenario which with the help of the characters resulted in hilarious outcomes, but what needs to be taking into consideration is that even though these shows were for a child audience they would every now and then included jokes that would only be noticed by an adult. It was not uncommon for shows around then to include the occasion adult joke that would normally go over the heads on children, only for them to realises as they themselves grew older. ‘Ren & Stimpy’ is a type of show that contains off colour humour, it’s a show that tries to be funny by being dark at times and often becomes adult with sexual innuendoes and often gruesome violence. It’s mature with it’s humour in a sense that at times it hard to believe that it’s a show for children and that many people would find it inappropriate to class it as such.

Censorship has a massive impact on humour with animated shows, being how children shows are meant to target a very young audience, what they could get away with in terms with content and humour needed to be suitable for children. So humour in these shows were dumbed down, they were not as witty as before because they wanted to make sure that their target audience would indeed laugh, shows like ‘Spongebob Square Pants’ who carried on with slapstick humour and contained jokes and gags that would seem to bland for a older audience, they would would be considered terrible shows to watch by more mature audiences since they basically focus on toilet humour, sure they were made to appeal to a young audience but the creators would believe that children would not be smart enough to understand more complex jokes so the humour in the show were dumbed down so mach just to get a cheap laugh from anybody.

So humour in animated shows were designed to fit a particular audience, depending on the age range of the audience would effect how witty, complex and mature the jokes were. Adult shows like ‘Family Guy’ and ‘South Park’ were meant for an adult audience so their humour were often far too mature and inappropriate for children. So jokes would often be around mature elements like sex, drugs, satirical elements on current affairs and any other elements deemed taboo or inappropriate for a younger audience. They would also contain humour that would leave the audience thinking “did they really say that’ because these shows wanted to leave a sting impact and would often focus on recent affairs to do that, either with political debates, global issues or anything that has been big on the news, these would often be to dark for people to make fun of or be used in a satirical sense.

Nowadays some believe that just plain silly children cartoons are dying out, and that people are favouring cartoons that as well as have humorous elements also contain weighted themes, much like seen in more adult shows but on a more tolerable level. It is believed that this is because the creators wanted to attract a mature audience saw well as a younger one. They are trying to appeal to teenagers, thusly getting rid of the stigma that cartoons are just for kids.

If we take into account of shows like ‘Adventure Time’, ‘Legend of Korra’ and ‘Steven Universe. They are shows that aim for a young audience, appealing to children, but what is sup prising is that the writers include heavy story elements that would often not be associated with a children's animated TV show. This is different from the past where the writers included hidden adult jokes because mature elements are not included just for humorous effect but to give a more, deeper and impactful story.

If we take ‘Legend of Korra’ which is in fact a sequel to ‘Legend of Aang- the last Airbender’ which came out few year prior, ‘Korra’ is a first of it’s kind because it can be considered a drama as well as a children’s cartoon. Each season has an over arcing story and each episode is mean to progress the story in that arc, which is different to other cartoons which are episodic, meaning each episode is a different story.

This show contain themes that relate to elements beyond the capabilities of children, the show focuses a lot on political elements and often relationships between characters. It is these elements that attract a mature audience, because it’s a show that doesn’t contain simplistic jokes or a dumbed down story line but a show like ‘Legend of Korra’ has great quality animation, fast pace action scenes, and most importantly themes people could relate to.

Another reason why a mature audience maybe attracted to a show like the ones listed, is that some of the weighted themes a viewer might find related able, take the show ‘Steven Universe’ the titular character has never met his mother and only seen her in pictures and videos and is only able to understand her view the perspective of other people. This could be relatable to people who are in the same situation, either with their mother or father, but this show doesn’t entirely focus on this element because the actual story of the show isn’t about that, but when episodes about Steven’s mother does come into play it is built up by showing not just Steven and how he feels not being able to see him mother but how other characters who have met her are suffering with loss that she is gone. There are other elements that are shown when certain characters are given more character development, such as how certain characters feel insecure about themselves because of where they were born, or how it’s revealed that they are in a same sex relationship. These elements would not have been ideal to show children but are themes that teenagers and young adults could relate with, and mixed in with the show’s humour and it’s silliness that attracts a child audience the age rate of the show increases mean more viewers and the increase popularity of the show.

Nowadays it could be considered that humour in animated TV shows is now being changed from the classic slapstick and silly gags we have seen in the past to humour that tries to coordinate itself with heavy themes in most modern day children animated TV shows. There are still chows can could be related back to the classics, such as ‘Teen Titans GO’ which happens the be a spin off show from it’s more serious predecessor, comparing it to it’s serious predecessor it’s about a group of teenage super heroes from the DC comics, when the original series came out it had combinations with both funny gags as well as serious elements, but the spin off ‘Teen Titans GO’ gets rid of all seriousness and instead becomes a show much like ‘Animaniacs’ where each episode is full of jokes and gags and slapstick that is meant to bring laughter to it’s audience. Though this displeases many of the original fans since most of the character’s personality are changed to fit this new show and everything they loved about the original show is removed.

I believe children animated TV shows in modern times have expanded on the traditional humour he have seen from shows by ‘Hanna Barbera’ and shows like ‘Animaniacs’, of course there are ones that still use the same techniques in humour and in writing but it terms with popularity and what people actually want to watch it seems that shows that have weighted themes and even go beyond what children want to see and take into consideration of the potential of a more mature audience with teenagers and young adults, shows are being created to combine an even amount of both funny and seriousness, to attract the attentions of little children and keep older audiences invested and make the show seem a lot smarter than what the stigma of children animated TV shows that people often associate them with, which is that children’s cartoons are nothing but dumb shows if watered down humour and that their only intention is to get cheap laughs out of children. As it’s been clear, creators of recent shows have developed entertainment that even though can be shown to young children but even if the parents of these children are present they themselves could also enjoy the humour and story, making the show appeal to a greater audience than just one particular group.

Charles Kenny , . (2015) Are Silly Animated Shows A Dying Breed?. [Online] Available from: http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationscoop/are-silly-animated-shows-a-dying-breed-20150324 [Accessed 18 March 2015].

Philip Scepanski, . Out of the Mouths of Babes: Animated Sitcoms and Political Incorrectness. [Online] Available from: http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/Fall08_Scepanski.html [Accessed 11 May 2015].

Nina Cresswell, . 24 Filthy Adult Jokes In Cartoons You Completely Missed As A Kid. [Online] Available from: http://whatculture.com/tv/24-filthy-adult-jokes-in-cartoons-you-completely-missed-as-a-kid.php [Accessed 13 May 2015].

Steven Universe IMDB page. [Online] Available from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3061046/ [Accessed 14 May 2015].

Legend of Korra IMDB page. [Online] Available from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1695360/ [Accessed 14 May 2015].

Animaniacs IMDB page. [Online] Available from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105941/ [Accessed 14 May 2015]

[p-iccadillywhor-e]

Experimental essay blurps bitte

[p-iccadillywhor-e]

Why I am who I am

"See ya later alligator." "After while crocodile!" He has the prettiest eyes. They're a light hazel ish color, almost like a carmel. And his eyes are so kind and gentle. They have this shine to them thats hard to explain. And maybe it's because U love him, or maybe everyone can see it, but they are so lovely. My best friend wears this cologne that I will always remember. The odor seems to be so strong on him and its kind of a clean, sharp smell. Its the kind of smell that sticks on you or in your nostrils for hours even after just a hug. Snow. Big coat. Cats. Park. Big tree. Pink room. Diana. Vacation. School. Netflix. Florida. Family christmas. Stress. 8th grade. Guitar pick necklace. Swing set. Beach. Cartoons. Michigan. Hand holding. New Years Eve. AJ. Biscuits and Gravy. Lunch table. Disney movies. Best friends. Love. Tie dye. Doctor Who. Niagara falls. Travel.

[stilleatingoranges]

Generation Y

Generation Y has problems.

Generation Y cannot find a job. Generation Y cannot break in. Generation Y has discovered that cash is the key to every door. Generation Y feels pressured to "make it" but cannot endure the rat race. Generation Y is starting to realize that it shouldn't try to "make it". Generation Y has seen the man behind the curtain. Generation Y knows that it has been brainwashed by advertising and mass culture. Generation Y has been co-opted anyway. Generation Y cannot break out.

Generation Y feels empty.

Generation Y has been taught what to think but not how to think. Generation Y has been told to memorize answers but not to ask questions. Generation Y has not been told how to live. Generation Y is trying to learn. Generation Y wants something new but can't find it. Generation Y rejects old methods but can't escape them. Generation Y is tired of consumerism but continues to consume. Generation Y has seen the nihilism at the end of modernism.

Generation Y feels empty.

Generation Y feels like no one has its back. Generation Y has no role models. Generation Y does not know what stability looks like. Generation Y acts out. Generation Y has addictions that it cannot control. Generation Y wants to feel secure. Generation Y has been depressed before. Generation Y has had breakdowns before. Generation Y takes medications that do not solve its problems. Generation Y is lonely but cannot connect. Generation Y is a shaken soda bottle. Generation Y needs a friend.

Still Eating Oranges