The Simpsons
Amber G. and Jared H.
By pretending to be a kids cartoon, the Emmy winning television show The Simpsons, gets away with murder. Using its young Harvard educated staff; the writers have found an arsenal of ways to sneak pop culture into their weekly shows without the audience being aware. The Simpsons mocks other programs that are on TV or have been on TV in the past and also exhibits characters that we can all relate to. There is at least one reenactment per weekly show, primarily from Hitchcock films or big time companies like Budweiser. By mocking them they are almost promoting those companies. The use of the characters is also very important. The writers give each character a specific characteristic that we can all relate to. By doing this they are able to invite us in, as viewers we then are able to compare our own reality to the program. This technique keeps us coming back for more. Although The Simpsons creators claim to have no hidden agenda, the creator in an interview does say something otherwise. “The Simpsons creator, comic strip artist, Matt Groeing, has long understood how to mask his countercultural agenda: I find that you can get away with all sorts of unusual ideas if you present them with a smile on your face (Rushkoff).”
While we try to compare Rushkoff to other authors of the sections we do think that the Rushkoff would agree with the techniques and styles used. Although Family Guy focus’ more on race, sexism and political views; while The Simpsons focus’ more on the “generation gap,” we think that the author would agree that they do carry a similar satire. Rushkoff’s argument about The Simpsons actually applies to Family Guy as well, except in one dimension: Rushkoff writes that The Simpsons’ creators do “not comment on social issues as much as they do on media imagery around a particular social issue. MacFarlane and company seem to do the reverse. Trusting in their viewers’ ability to analyze what they are watching, the creators of Family Guy point out the weaknesses and defects of the U.S. society in a mocking an sometimes intolerant way (Peacocke, 263) In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron, the author does state that “America determined to amuse itself into inanition, is becoming increasingly desensitized. So entertainment seeking a mass audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be-its largest challenge-shocking in an unshockable society (Will, 295).” This statement we believe that Rushkoff would also agree with. In a sense she may be from that “baby boomer” generation and also caught in the generation gap.
Works Cited:
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.
Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
By pretending to be a kids cartoon, the Emmy winning television show The Simpsons, gets away with murder. Using its young Harvard educated staff; the writers have found an arsenal of ways to sneak pop culture into their weekly shows without the audience being aware. The Simpsons mocks other programs that are on TV or have been on TV in the past and also exhibits characters that we can all relate to. There is at least one reenactment per weekly show, primarily from Hitchcock films or big time companies like Budweiser. By mocking them they are almost promoting those companies. The use of the characters is also very important. The writers give each character a specific characteristic that we can all relate to. By doing this they are able to invite us in, as viewers we then are able to compare our own reality to the program. This technique keeps us coming back for more. Although The Simpsons creators claim to have no hidden agenda, the creator in an interview does say something otherwise. “The Simpsons creator, comic strip artist, Matt Groeing, has long understood how to mask his countercultural agenda: I find that you can get away with all sorts of unusual ideas if you present them with a smile on your face (Rushkoff).”
While we try to compare Rushkoff to other authors of the sections we do think that the Rushkoff would agree with the techniques and styles used. Although Family Guy focus’ more on race, sexism and political views; while The Simpsons focus’ more on the “generation gap,” we think that the author would agree that they do carry a similar satire. Rushkoff’s argument about The Simpsons actually applies to Family Guy as well, except in one dimension: Rushkoff writes that The Simpsons’ creators do “not comment on social issues as much as they do on media imagery around a particular social issue. MacFarlane and company seem to do the reverse. Trusting in their viewers’ ability to analyze what they are watching, the creators of Family Guy point out the weaknesses and defects of the U.S. society in a mocking an sometimes intolerant way (Peacocke, 263) In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron, the author does state that “America determined to amuse itself into inanition, is becoming increasingly desensitized. So entertainment seeking a mass audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be-its largest challenge-shocking in an unshockable society (Will, 295).” This statement we believe that Rushkoff would also agree with. In a sense she may be from that “baby boomer” generation and also caught in the generation gap.
Works Cited:
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.
Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
You did a good job giving supporting ideas and clearly explaining what your reading entailed. The only thing that could have stood out more was the actual thesis statement (although I'm pretty sure it is your first sentence). Our group dealt with this by answering the individual questions. I also think you did a nice job on your comparisons to other readings. They seemed to be well thought through. The only thing I would suggest, for the sake of clarification, would be to do your comparisons separate from each other.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I would like to mention is that I think your group would have been much better off if you would have arragned you writing a little better. I believe it would be much easier to read and depick the different parts of the assisnment if you would have separated it by the different questions and kept each supporting point/idea separate. Doing this would hopefully make your assignment much clearer than it currently is. Otherwise your paper seems to be pretty good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous comments. There needs to be some seperation in ideas, so that it is easier to see where one idea ends and another begins. I thimk that the thesis isn't as clear as perhaps it should be, but I think that you have very good information and support for your paper. Your support is clear and sensible and it is written well in regards to wording and vocabulary; I think that it is easy to read and understand while still sounding professional. There isn't all that twisted lingo that some get sucked into using trying to sound more scholarly...I guess what I am saying is that I can hear voices of people and that makes it easy to relate too. I would say overall nice job!!
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job, It was easy reading to me, but like the others said you could of done better with the thesis. You used good support, but you could of added a little more to back up you thesis, and maybe separate the two. All and all I enjoyed reading it, it kept me interested.
ReplyDeleteI am sure you do not want to hear it again and I would hate to beat a dead horse, but the thesis does not really stand out here. Another thing I noticed in the first paragraph is that it is hard to distinguish your ideas with the author's. On a positive note you did a great job on the works cited and the comparison with other author's as well. I found that to be difficult in this assignment, good job.
ReplyDeleteI thought your group had some very good comparisons. They worked well in supporting the points you brought up. You obviously spent some time in finding points in the other articles that tie in well to the points you wanted to make. It would have been nice to have the points separated a bit more. The thesis does not stand out very well. Overall this is an interesting paper. I enjoyed reading it. You did keep me interested until the end.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your essay and thought that you did it well, and not to beat a dead horse, I am still confused about what the thesis was. I don't know that I would seperate questions and then answer but I think I would have arranged the writing a little different. It was written well in the respect that the statements were followed with supporting evidence, however, the writing itself was a little choppy and hard to follow. Maybe next time you could try to use a template and put all the writing into that, it might help.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your essay; it kept me interested throughout the entire paper. I think your thesis could have been a bit stronger, other than that it was good. You had a lot of points that I had never really thought about. I have watched The Simpson’s loads of times and also Family guy I do believe they have a lot in common but at the same time they bring up much different views. I do think it would have been better if you would have compared your author separate from each of the others, but it was original.
ReplyDeleteI think your group did a good job with your essay and I like reading it. I think all of your explanation on how the Simpson TV show works was dead on. I thought it was very well structured and your supporting ideas were accurate. I actually like reading this article and found it to be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou have a pretty good article, though the lack of space between paragraphs made it difficult to see the organization of your ideas. When posting on just about any blog, use double newlines to separate your paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I have to agree with other classmates here that your summary doesn't mention anything about the original author. This omission makes your essay appear to be your own thoughts, which I'm sure was not your intent.
And one last thing: please check your mechanics, particularly your quotations and parenthetical citations. For one, the quote from Peacocke doesn't have correct quotation marks. Part of it appears to be among your own words. Also, parenthetical citations should appear after the final quotation mark, but before a period. Check pages 216 and 217 of the MLA Handbook for examples.
I like your article very much and found it to be an interesting read. I thought you did a good job of presenting your article. I layout was very easy to read and the transitions into what your author thought of about the two authors was well done. I liked the use of your quotes to help show why Amber G. and Jared H. would respond in that way. Although I agree with the other posters the thesis could of been clearer.
ReplyDelete