January 23
Journal Entry #8
Even though I loved Fey's humor in this book, I sometimes felt like it wasn't really going anywhere. It wasn't chronological and issues were left opened at the end of each section. I think it would have been more beneficial if I knew the older SNL's better because I would understand the loose ends of the jokes. Differently, Superfreakonomics only discussed things that were either really relatable, or described subjects in perfect detail that were completely un-relatable. I think both selections proved that my ideal balance of humor in a book is closer to that of Superfreakonomics. I just couldn't handle a whole book of laughs. It's almost like I became resentful at the end of Bossypants and found everything particularly not-funny and trying too hard.
After I finished nearly every section of Superfreakonomics, I noticed myself bringing the book up either with friends or at the table. I always left with some fun facts or crazy stats. But Bossypants didn't really have that kind of substance. They would be funny stories to hear from a friend, but they didn't make you think. I think I may (surprisingly) have a side of me that likes those sceincey books. I felt like Fey was so degrading that I began to think of her less as well. Bossypants didn't "affect" me at all. It would be silly to say that. If anything she just confirmed that the awkward stage ends and good things come. But Superfreakonomics really just got me going! I wrote so many college essays about how I'm always looking for connections, and a big part of that was sparked by that book.
I my read Bossypants again later when I have seen more SNL's. But I'm not really a devoted SNL fan; I only recently began watching. I just can't appreciate it. I'm glad I tried both selections though.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY
January 17
Journal Entry #7
Tina would totally destroy the seriousness of an Oprah show and there would be a power struggle if she were on Colbert. She would do best on a lighthearted talk show like Ellen. Ellen would prompt her humor, and the two would bounce back and forth flawlessly.
1. Is your husband still afraid of flying? What a loser…
2. What was Amy Poehler like back then?
3. Is your father single?
4. What's your favorite part about having thick eyebrows?
5. Tell me about the dud sketches you've made.
6. Who do you hate more, Perez Hilton or Centaurious?
7. Do you use Kotex Classic?
8. Do I have cankles?
9. Alec Baldwin or Tracy Morgan?
10. Would you describe yourself as pear-shaped?
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 173/260
January 7
Journal Entry #6
Once Tina Fey became a writer for SNL, she began the constant contests between her and other writers for the winning sketch to be aired not hat week's episode. She initially found herself stumped, and rarely advocated for her own pieces, That would be cheating. Though in an environment made up almost entirely of Harvard-graduate "boys", she felt like her and the other female writer, Amy, had nearly no chance. On one specific instance, the writers were to write a parody commercial. Amy had written hers on "Classic Kotex", mocking the trend of the time for products to add the word "Classic" to their names to increase the appeal. To give Kotex that "nostalgic" feeling, Amy described the pads in her sketch as huge, lofty wads of cotton that were to be strapped on with a belt.
But the writers completely disregarded her.
Tina needed to stand up for female comedians. She often felt that one bad woman stand-up show left everyone with the impression that women weren't funny. She was not going to be dragged down by this misconception. She wanted to ensure that the reason her pieces were not being noticed because of her gender. So, Tina spent hours talking privately with the producers, trying to coerce them. As far as she was concerned, sexism would not be the reason this sketch would be rejected. To her surprise, it ended up that the two male producers simply did not get it. They asked how you would see it? (Any female knows any diaper-y pad is unquestionably visible through any pair of pants.) She came to realize that there was no "institutionalized sexism," they just had a different take on humor. Eventually, the sketch was chosen and produced, and is now known as one of the best parodies made thus far. You go girl.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 157/260
December 24
Journal Entry #5
In this section of Tina Fey's novel, she focuses on her honeymoon trip on a luxury cruise to Bermuda. She had exceptionally high hopes for the trip. She would take a bicycle ride through the island, eat fancy shrimp dishes, and attend multiple shows and musicals presented by entertainers on deck. Unfortunately, the trip went completely wrong. She missed her bicycle trip. The boat even had a fire in the bottom of the ship, leaving all the passengers frightened and panicked on the upper deck of the ship, huddled together in fear. She saw herself as a member of the Titanic, and jokingly noted that she would not give up a raft for her newlywed see husband. The general concept of everything seeming to go wrong seems to be one that Fey visits in many sections of the autobiography. Sadly, this idea can (almost too) easily be applied to Columbia. There is always an issue at Columbia. It's almost humorous how much goes wrong at that school. On a single day at Columbia you can expect to encounter a broken sink, a clump of weave on the bathroom floor, a heatless classroom, a locker that has been broken into, and so much more.
Truthfully, Fey doesn't exactly "solve" her issue. Instead, she laughs about it. That has certainly become a part of the social scene at Columbia. No one understands our humor because much of it pertains to the issues in our school. Many don't understand why all we do is laugh about them. For instance, a friend of mine slipped in the front hall way on a stick of butter. Only at Columbia would a stick of butter be found casually on the floor. Fey teaches us to laugh things off. It works for the most part. But sometimes you really do have to face the facts.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 134/260
December 16
Journal Entry #4
Donna is the secretary at the YMCA who works alongside Tina. Tina and Donna have both applied for a higher position. Though Donna has seniority, Tina is more likely to get the job.
From the view of Donna:
That's just lovely. Tina got the job. Sigh. But I have the personality for the job. It's OK. Tina makes conversation too often. She wastes her breath. She'll tire of talking. That's why I speak in monosyllabic sentences filled with the minimum amount of energy.
Tina described Donna as, "an enigma wrapped in bacon wrapped in a crescent roll." She always left Tina hanging in conversations, even when the two agreed very passionately about a subject. An example of this is clearly apparent on page 71, "'TINA: 'Weren't you gonna go visit your daughter in Indiana?' DONNA: 'Postponed.'" Donna's outlook on nearly everything is nearly the polar opposite of that of Tina's. Tina has a very analytical look on everything, this being the source of inspiration for her humor. Donna views the world in black and white, with one word answers, and simple clauses. There would be no way to tell Tina's story in Donna's eyes, because it simply wouldn't exist. The entire story would consist of roughly seventeen sentences, going something like, "I was born. I grew. I became a woman. I got a job. I lost a job. I got a jab. I made people laugh. I found a male."
Both Tina and Donna have honest perspectives. One is not more bias than another. Tina's story is through her eyes, so of course her perspective is entirely valid. Donna simply tells it how it is. However, the nuances and themes that Tina brings to her reader are significantly more meaningful than anything Donna could ever provide. Donna doesn't feel. She isn't offended or defensive. Tina displays the world as the competitive, ugly place it is with humor in between the lines.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 89/260 (I had a concussion & was absent the following Monday)
December 3
Journal Entry #3
Tina Fey was largely involved in improvisation and theatre companies after and during her college years. She described that there were a multitude of unwritten rules amongst improv acting. Like any sport or social interaction, we follow "rules" that are never blatantly spelled out. For example, I would never ask a teacher their weight in average conversation. It just wouldn't be acceptable. Tine illuminated many similar boundaries in the improv rule.
One boundary was, ironically enough, the lack of boundary. "There are no mistakes," she ensured. In improv, you couldn't mess up. It was a roll with it type of process. A process that I have never (and probably never will) be able to apply. But maybe this kind of process is what we need. Certainly, many of us feel pressured and overwhelmed by guidelines. We cringe at walls and desperately eat away at them. Teens, especially, seldom follow along with boundaries. So what if the rules of improv– the spontaneity and looseness– are exactly what our society needed? Of course, to an extent. I can undoubtedly imagine that millions would succeed in a world where mistakes were nonexistent. Obviously, we all need to recognize that some choices are better than others. But imagine the risks and chances we would all take? The technology we have today would be essentially ancient if mistakes were obsolete. We would each act on every idea, every blueprint, ever thought. Our society would be booming with innovation and creativity. School systems would thrive in a sense. Without the pressure of right and wrong, students would be encouraged to think outside of the box without penalty. Critical thinking, in today's mindset, is hypocritical. Why, or rather how, have I been marked wrong for critical thinking questions?
I think Tina may have been suggesting a breakthrough idea on her little theatre tour bus.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 83/260
November 18
Jounral Entry #2
I think Tina Fey's autobiography has a more meaningful purpose than simply telling her story. Throughout the book, she devalues herself with humor and sarcasm. She openly admits that she was awkward and embarrassing and, possibly, still is. With that, I think she wrote to her audience to portray that despite the lack of beauty and a charming personality, she was able to love life and live it to its absolute fullest. Her message is to show how much value that has over those with the perfect life story. her imperfections, though measly, led to her version of perfection. She didn't have some huge life tragedy to overcome. She wasn't a professional athlete, or model, or scholar. She was just Tina. She writes as just-Tina, though her audience still falls in love with her voice.
She is undoubtedly successful in doing so. Absolutely every sentence is relatable. That's what makes me giggle uncontrollably, I think. It's that she shares nearly every thought that has crossed through her mind, and I always have had the exact same thought. She uses her humor, her dry and judgmental descriptions of people in replacement of sugar-coated and formal names, her hilariously "classic" anecdotes that seem very non-celebrity-esque. All of these components mixed together in her book provide this sense of happiness. She motivates you, making you appreciate the small stupid things that you normally would over look. If just-Tina can do it, so can I.
BOSSYPANTS TINA FEY: p. 50/260
November 13
Jounral Entry #1
When picking out a nonfiction book for this quarter, I wanted to find something with a lighthearted tone, but a deep, substantial meaning behind it. I think many of us mistakenly presume that nonfiction books are bland and information-heavy. I looked to prove this conception wrong. In doing so, I looked to the book written by one of the funniest women on television–Tina Fey. I've never read a biography (for leisure), nor have I read a comedy. I felt like I needed a change. Though I really enjoyed reading Superfreakonomics, I came to the realization that the parts that really got me most excited were those when the author threw in corny, small jokes. With all the buzz and stress of college applications, I felt like I needed far more than a couple cracks here and there. Who better to lighten the mood than Tina?
I expect this read to be a big change from Superfreakonomics. I won't really be learning or connecting. I think I'll just be reliving Tina Fey's life. I'll be laughing when she laughs and crying if she cries. probably not the latter though. Tina doesn't cry.
BOOK #2
Journal Entry #6
There is most certainly a "type" that reads Superfreakonomics. He, by no means, is a conformist. He questions everything he sees. He's the guy that raises his hand thirty-five times in class to debate a fact, ignoring the irritated groans of his classmates. He's the guy that counts the tip when you're out to dinner, even though you literally just set it down. He's the guy that abbreviates this book as "Super Freak" and thinks he's clever. He's the guy that wonders how many other people have done the same thing.
Superfreakonomics does not appeal to anyone interested in a certain area. Considering that one chapter goes into great detail on terrorism, and the next on prisons, this is most definitely true. However, the way in which the authors attack these subjects is what attracts a specific kind of reader. The authors don't give background information. There is never foundation with which they work off of. Why? because for this reader, the foundation that many other books may bolster themselves up with isn't reliable. Levitt and Dubner share this sense of doubt and display it with unconventional thinking. These readers are those that become excited with questions, not overwhelmed. They aren't the types to look for solutions– because often times the authors are unable to supply them. When discussing the increase of crime in the 1960s, for instance, the authors suggested factor after factor that had a surprising correlation with the crime spike. Though the chapter finished with a sentence that may overwhelm the wrong type of reader, "Decades later, most criminologists remain perplexed" (p. 143).
Journal Entry #5
I am Ian Hoarsley. From the heart of England, just an average man working in a bank, I have discovered behaviors and qualities that are likely those of a terrorist. I'm amazed that my work with a database has proven so significant to Levitt and Dubner; I'm simply flattered. Like these authors, I have prided myself in looking at the data and the facts that no one ever looks at. I have made it my goal to seek the patterns that may reveal things about those we fear the most– terrorists. What have I found? I have found the unexpected, and I have found something within it, that is entirely expected. A likely-terorist is drastically less likely to buy life insurance. It seems like an insignificant data point at first glance. Though like the geniuses behind Superfreakonomics I have put it all together; of course someone planning to commit suicide later on would not struggle to scratch up enough cash to start a life insurance account. Though laymen may have a set stereotype of this terrorist, my data strives to diverge from these prejudice, and lead us to a more accurate image. Living near a mosque is a quality that tells little to nothing about the likelihood of one being a terrorist. As does his marital or employment status. Levitt and Dubner have honored my meticulous analyzing– I recommend you begin to do the same.
Journal Entry #4
Without any characters or specific conflicts in my book, being that it is more of a collection of analysis and data, I am left with a prominent perception of what the authors are presenting, rather than a relatable plot or protagonist. The chapter I recently completed was focused largely on the efficacy of emergency rooms. The issue presented was that in the past, doctors were spending more time on extracting information on their patients, rather than solving their issues, ultimately misdiagnosing a large percent of those hospitalized. The solution? A database system that is currently covers information and records of over ten million patients. At the time, however, many believed that doctors were not up to par. They theorized that hospitals were unsuccessful and paid little attention to the wasted time on these records. This has morphed my perception of situations beyond this one. It is truly inspiring that issues are constantly solved by solutions seemingly unrelated. Levitt and Dubner have presented this again and again. The importance of this phenomenon is crystal clear. Half the issues, if not all of them, that we face globally and personally, can probably be solved if we think "outside of the box." As cliche as that is, it is undeniably what gets us from point A to point in countless circumstances. It is overwhelming and stressful to think that we could presumably manage to solve most issues if we partake in this kind of thinking. All solutions may be manageable and attainable, but we aren't creative enough to think of them. This book, yet again, has gotten me think differently than the average Joe. Poor Joe.
(122/215) I know I'm behind but I'll catch up!
SuperFreakonomics
Journal Entry #3
Levitt and Dubner's goal in Super Freakonomics is to doubt and dispute conventional and accepted ideology. They introduce a multitude of topics ranging from prostitution to drunk driving; with that, they do not have a specific message to convey to the reader. What they do attempt to portray, however, is the necessity not to blindly accept what society has taught us to believe. The authors are undoubtedly successful at showing me this need to question. Their discussion of drunk driving certainly made the most impact. We are drilled with catchy phrases like "Don't drink and drive" to keep ourselves and others safe. The authors suggested the popular alternative– drunk walking. We assume, then, that walking is safer than getting behind the wheel. However, the authors reveal that stats: "Doing the math, you find that on per-mile basis, a drunk walker is eight times more likely to get killed than a drunk driver."Revelations such as this fill every page in the book. The reader becomes accustomed to these shocks, and learn to look for them in everyday life.
(93/215)
Journal Entry #2
This chapter of the book touched on the pros of prostitution. The authors mentioned that the reason prostitution is largely still prevalent, though the many laws against it, because the prostitutes are the only ones liable. The men who hire them seldom face consequences: "The data show that a man who solicits a street prostitute is likely to be arrested about once for every 1,200 visits." The authors argued that this reason is likely why many illegal business remain unstopped. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and pimps may face consequences, but the consumers, those who keep the business going, are not held liable. The presence of a law against these consumers is highly controversial. The book joked that, "If, for instance, men convicted of hiring a prostitute were sentenced to castration, the market would contract in a hurry." The presence of such a law (obviously one with a more reasonable consequence) is controversial. The discussion of prostitution branches beyond the laws. The authors show the income of the average prostitute with a woman working a full-time job. The wages are, frighteningly, similar. At a specific brothel that was analyzed, the average prostitute made $400,000 annually. I think it's sickening that it's possible to make so much money selling your own body. It provides all the more incentive for women in desperate financial situation to turn to the field. Either women's wages need to match men's in the regular workforce, or the demand/supply of prostitutes needs to result in a wage decrease, in order to get the world back on track. Those numbers are just so disturbing. It honestly makes you wonder why you'd spend 5 plus years paying for college and spending time writing senior theses and essay after essay, if the salary you'll make in your post-graduate job will pay the same amount as standing on the streets for a couple hours every Saturday night.
For the record, I am not seriously considering prostitution. (Just thought I'd clarify).
Journal Entry #1
I'm not a huge reader. Honestly, I really haven't enjoyed many of the books we've read for school thus far. I think I don't like the classics we've delved into, like Lord of the Flies, because we are taught to look for specific symbols and meanings, rather than dissecting the books on our own. I like thought-provoking readings that have significance beyond a conch shell. I absolutely adored Freakonomics when I read it a couple years ago. It was so interesting, and the unconventional concepts were exactly what I was craving for in a book. I tried to find a book equally as inquisitive for this class. So, what better than the sequel to Freakonomics? I chose Superfreakonomics, hoping it would be equally as great a read as the first. Based on my reading preferences, I can clearly see that I read with purpose. I don't enjoy the mush of fiction pieces; instead, I enjoy to be forced to think. As I choose nonfiction books throughout the years, I hope to find a specific field or author that I really love. I've never really had a favorite author or specific area of interest. Reading these informative books will give me a broad outlook on many topics and will simultaneous cause new ideas and thoughts to run through my mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment