Closed Prompt

http://badassdigest.com/2012/11/13/on-fake-geek-girls/

Recently, a comic artist named Tony Harris posted an extremely misogynistic post on his Facebook about how most girls who dress up in costumes for conventions are not attractive and not real "geeks", and therefore should stop dressing up and that "You have this really awful need for attention, for people to tell you your pretty, or Hot, and the thought of guys pleasuring themselves to the memory of you hanging on them with your glossy open lips, promising them the Moon and the Stars of pleasure, just makes your head vibrate."

This article is somewhat of a PSA to all those fired up about the Tony Harris scandal: appreciate the girls who are actually true "geeks", rather than worrying about all the girls that aren't. 

The author's diction tells us that he disagrees with Harris while still pointing out some valid points made in the rant. 

"Look, anybody who dresses up in a costume and goes to a convention is looking for attention. Let's not argue this point. I'm making a value-free statement here: if you show up at an event in a costume, you're not trying to melt into the crowd. The less you're wearing in that costume the less you're trying to be incognito. I think we can acknowledge this without being sexist or crass.

As for whether these cosplayers have knowledge of their costumes: impossible to say. Harris is painting with too broad of a brush here. I've met cosplayers who have no knowledge of their characters, and I've met cosplayers who are so precise in their knowledge they feel bad when they have a seam out of place. I know women cosplayers who dress up as characters so obscure I don't know who they are. I think it's weird when people try to hang out at enthusiast-based events without the enthusiasm, but that's not a gendered thing. That's a poseur thing."

Using casual, conversational, and non-commital words like "Look...let's not argue...I think we can acknowledge this without...impossible to say...that's not a gendered thing" effectively conveys the fact that he wants to be somewhat of a diplomat-he agrees with a few points of the "villain", but doesn't want to anger people, so placates them by discussing why said points can be valid. He drives home his point that the issue is more than meets the eye when he says "that's not a gendered thing", because he's expanding the scope of the article to a true "nerd community" problem (fake geeks), rather than a stereotyped subset (fake geek girls). 

He also effectively uses imagery to convey the ridiculousness of misogynistic men who "breeze past smart, engaged, passionate geek women because the dorky dudes didn't see the women as properly f*ckable." in this passage:

"Let's tell comic creators that we want female characters who are more than just excuses for cheesecake. That we want female comic characters who are rounded beyond their breasts and butts, who aren't spin-offs or namesakes or girlfriends of existing male heroes. And when comic creators provide these characters, support them with your dollars.

Make Real Geek Girls comfortable in our world by not being a bunch of sexist drooling pigs all the time. I can't even imagine being a woman at a con, where most of the women depicted in display art are highly sexualized at best, dehumanized and objectified at worst. I think the 'sexy' cosplayers add to the ugly anti-female atmosphere at cons...."

Using very specific image words like "rounded" regarding characters gives people the image of something being shaped, while conveying that this "shaping" is still a work in progress in best, and non-existent at worse. Calling certain men "sexist drooling pigs" definitely was written to give us an image-incompetent, leering men who see women as nothing but food, or "booty" (pardon the pun). Adding the word "dehumanized" before he says women are "objectified" sharply mixes with the image of men as pigs to create a notion that even those who have less than "human" behavior have the power to make someone innocent feel like the one who is truly less than a person. 

Though I personally don't agree with everything this author says about the "fake geek girl" debacle, I think it does a great job of conveying a diplomatic point while presenting readers with a view that is framed as "human". 

1988. Choose a distinguished novel or play in which some of the most significant events are mental or psychological; for example, awakenings, discoveries, changes in consciousness. In a well-organized essay, describe how the author manages to give these internal events the sense of excitement, suspense, and climax usually associated with external action. Do not merely summarize the plot.

     In the novel Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen creates an engaging plot revolving around the social and love affairs of young women of the upper-middle class. The majority of the action isn't actually "action" in the sense of many novels- it all happens with the dialogue, thoughts, and relations between characters. Austen manages to make these as exciting as gunfights or car chases by making the characters relatable and exaggerating the action past what you would see in real life to make it seem more dramatic. 

     The way Austen makes characters more relatable is a key element in making the action exciting. Talking about two people who are suffering from heartbreak is somewhat boring, but feeling like you yourself are suffering makes you want to know how the pain will resolve and so you are more engaged in the action. Austen makes this possible by giving the characters traits that you can see in yourself (idealism, emotion, romantic vision, extreme judgement, a shoulder to lean on), and then gives each character a love interest that you may sympathize with or despise, giving you a reason to root for one or the other to succeed or fail in their courtships. 

     Another way Austen makes readers involved in the internal conflicts of the story is by making said conflicts somewhat dramatic. For example, there is the tale of Colonel Brandon, the 35 year old military man who falls in love with Marianne, the younger of the two sisters in the story. At first, you see his attentions to the 16 year old somewhat odd, but as his story unravels, you start to feel for him. It is filled with dramatic twists, the promising of his childhood love to his older brother, who then abused her and left her penniless with an illegitamate child, and as she died of tuberculosis in the slums, he promised to take care of her child and forever bear the heartbreak. As you find all these things out, you want to know what happens because the situation is so emotional but odd.

     Jane Austen successfully makes internal conflicts as interesting as external ones by making the characters relatable and the events dramatic. These techniques make the reader get involved with the characters and get them curious about the events, even though they all are just simple dialogues and relationships. 

(note: I do feel that this essay is somewhat short and my details could be more clear...also my conclusion sucks.)

Response to Course Material

In class, we have been reading and analyzing Death of a Salesman. Personally...I mean I can see why many people like it, and I can appreciate it...but I don't necessarily like it. The characters all annoy me- Linda is too passive, Willy is too hypocritical and blind, and Happy doesn't like to look at issues past the  surface. Biff is okay, but he can't redeem the whole play. When I was annotating it and thinking back to The American Dream, I found the symbolism more subtle, but I also felt that interpreting the whole story as an allegory for the American Dream in general was kind of a stretch. Internal issues tied together in beautiful circles, but I couldn't see how you could explicitly reach the conclusion that it meant something more externally, because I'm sure you could fit the ideas into multiple different puzzles to come up with different pictures.