Influence Blog, posted Wednesday night, for the apparent due date of Thursday, even though School Loop says Friday

            The World’s Columbian Exposition was the birthplace of many of the things we see or hear about on a daily basis.  Whether it was because of a new invention, a new icon, a new type of food, or a new way of doing things, the 1893 World’s Fair was characterized by innovation.  Because of the lasting effect of the Fair, today we have luxuries that may not have been given to us and the rest of the world.

            America is seen today as being the “fat” nation. There are many contributing factors to this that have their origins from the 1893 Columbian Exposition.  One of the biggest businesses in America today is the fast food industry – and where would this somewhat destructive industry be without their main cuisine? Thanks to the World’s Fair, the hamburger came to America, thus bringing along with it all the health problems and deliciousness that these incredible sandwiches are associated with today.  And what about the chocolate industry; where would America be without Milton Hershey?  The original Wonka was inspired by the World’s Fair and became the pioneer for American-made milk chocolate. Then there are other foods that were popularized because of the Fair, such as cracker jacks and cream of wheat. These delightful snacks may seem like the most significant additions to American history, but we cannot forget about the marvelous inventions that came along with the celebration of Columbus.

            The Ferris wheel is one of the most defining features of any amusement park.  Whether it is the average carnival or an enormous amusement park, Ferris’ wheel can be seen to this day because of his contribution to the World’s Fair.  But if a 360 degree box ride isn’t enough for you, something much more significant came out of the Fair that changed the world forever.

            Shocking as it may be, the popularization of electricity stemmed from the Fair’s use of electric lighting that eventually shine to almost every place in the world.  The Fair used George Westinhouse’s alternating current to illuminate the Fair and awe all those in attendance during a brightened Chicago night.  And although Westinghouse lit up the fair, Thomas Edison gave an outstanding performance at the fair by showing his light tower which lit up colored jewels to music. The use of electricity at the Fair paved the way for electricity being a necessity in our society today.

            Overall, the World’s Columbian Exposition influenced many great things and the effects of the Fair are seen today.  Whether it is an unhealthy lunch, a viewing of Walt Disney’s many magical creations that were influenced by the White City, or the power for the computer you are currently reading this on, the Fair remains a subtle part of our lives even today.

The Shadow of Light

Erik Larson gives insight into the hero and villain of Chicago.  Through the concept of light and darkness, Larson builds Chicago into a struggle of how the city will be perceived by the rest of the world.  With Burnham, Larson turns Chicago into the White City, filled with structures that attempt to push America to glory for the World’s Fair.  But Larson then mars Chicago’s image but introducing the devil to the White City, Holmes. Both have an ongoing yet unknown battle for the prize of Chicago and its legacy, and each attempt to achieve their goals because they are the best of the best at what they do.

                These two great men are the embodiments of “the ineluctable conflict between good and evil.”

                Burnham was an honest man working for an honest cause.  He came to the White City with aspirations of the American dream.  He fulfilled his goals and was chosen to be the leader of designing the Columbus Exposition.  He was to make not only his city, but his country a symbol of honor and achievement.  Through this task that was bestowed upon him, he engaged the impossible and succeeded; the pressure that his world bore down on him turned him into a bright, shining diamond – the hero of the White City.

                But for every diamond in the rough, there is always a lump of coal that darkens the city with a malevolent shadow, a shadow that intended to destroy the shining White City that Burnham was building.  Holmes had the tools he needed to become anything or anyone.  He had unmatched charm and wit that stood second to none.  He had no enemies, because even they were subject to the power of Dr. Holmes’ charisma.  Holmes decided that the only challenge to him was the challenge of a human’s mortality.  Murder was the only true stimulant that this man had, killing was his only arousal. Holmes is the antithesis of our hero Burnham.  Where Burnham sought nobility, Holmes sought sorrow. 

                But these two men shared something greater than physical or emotional traits – they shared an idea.  The same idea had sprouted in each man’s brain that would propel them to dominate their field of expertise. These men sought success, and this idea of being the best put a vice grip on their minds and affected how they would determine their own fate.  These men were opposites, yet they were the same.  They were the epitome of light and dark, the whitest of white and blackest of black, but the small grey link that connected them, a single idea, made them essentially the same in how they thought.

                Erik Larson used these men to tell a story about an event that changed America.  These men are the archetypes in American history for their chosen paths.  Although they strove for success, they received much more than that; they gained the embodiment of good and evil, and serve as models for an actual hero or villain as they are in the real world.  

Modern Satire

                Today, media is the main source of satire.  Television and spoof movies display satirical elements in their works nowadays.  They have a range of messages from politics and current events to more specific things like products or people.  One main program which deals almost completely with satire is Saturday Night Live.  The popular show has featured many skits which mock just about everything.  Their actors play the role of someone or something and use familiar actions and/or characteristics which will give the viewer a few laughs, but not without delivering their stand on a subject.  A popular skit had to do with President Obama during his election campaign and his ideas for his upcoming term.  SNL proceeded to poke at Obama’s ideas to make them sound outrageous and humorous, but then brought in candidate John McCain and made fun of his ideas also.  The show reflects on the national problems and events and puts them into more humorous terms which people then watch for enjoyment.  But it also has a wide array of topics that don’t pertain only to politics.  Andy Samberg is one of the most popular cast members on SNL.  He has performed in many skits, many of them with his musical group “The Lonely Island.”  These are much more lighthearted forms of satire and they are mainly for their comedic value.  They usually include strange topics, vulgar language, and an over-the-top script.  For example, one of their skits was about Rastafarianism in which Samberg portrayed a college student who dressed in loose clothing, rode a longboard, had dreadlocks, and smoked marijuana.  This playfully mocked the lifestyle by emphasizing and exaggerating common stereotypes.  Generally, most of their skits followed this guideline.  Another popular form of this solely comedic satire is the show South Park.  South Park, an animated show on Comedy Central, is very similar to SNL but usually deals with mocking the misfortunes of people and bashes them.   Throughout the 13 seasons, the show has mocked current events and trending people of the time when the episode was aired.  Some famous people and events that were satirized include Tom Cruise, Barbara Streisand, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, the cast of Jersey Shore, the BP oil spill, NASCAR, the release of the Nintendo Wii, and countless others.  Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker then took these people and events and dedicated an episode to mocking them based on what made them recently famous.  One example of their satire is an episode where one of the characters is excited for the release of the Nintendo Wii.  He goes on adventure dealing with outrageous happenings such as time travel and war so he can get the Wii sooner.  This mocked the excitement for the release of the product back in 2006 where people stood in line for a week waiting to obtain this trivial device.  Many episodes mock the usually embarrassing or stupid actions of a real life person or event.  The effect of this satire I think is that people enjoy the shows solely for their entertainment value.  These shows touch on subjects but in the end people come back for a few good laughs.  The shows satirize the events and use them as a guideline for a skit or episode.

                Then there are much more serious, but still comedic, forms of satire.  Examples of this would be The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report.  These are two shows that deal with real world news but put a comedic twist on them to make the news more enjoyable for the viewer.  They show or discuss an event and then provide humorous commentary on the subject.  But the main difference from SNL and South Park is that these two shows actually show serious current events in how they are playing out instead of recreating them in a skit.  The shows include a person connected to one of the shows’ main topics and then the hosts discuss their feelings towards the subject. The effect of this form of satire is that people see multiple sides of a situation and argument.  These shows point out flaws, many times in politics, that they see as important for the viewer to know, like in the case of voting for someone with crooked ideals that might be seen as reckless or wrong.  But I think that because of shows like these, people are much more aware of key aspects of day to day life.

Hero

                In The Sun Also Rises, Pedro Romero is the new and promising bull fighter in Pamplona.   He shows off his finesse and tenacity in the arena, and throughout the week long celebration.  He is the archetypical hero at the end of the story and differs from the other men in Brett’s life.  He shows these heroic qualities literally in the arena where he is steadfast and faces the dangers of the bull head on.  The crowd loves him because he is entertaining and steals the show from the old, legendary Belmonte.  But Hemingway added Romero to reflect on World War I and how the male characters in society during this time period are different.  Romero shows his control over obstacles not only in the arena, but when around a pretty girl.  Brett, like many women probably would have done in real life, wanted to be with him for his handsomeness and heroics.  But Romero represents a quality that his generation has not lost - self control.  Although fond of Brett, Romero does not succumb to Brett's will like her other suitors do.  Jake will do anything to please Brett even if it conflicts with his love for her, and in some cases, like with that of Romero, really conflicts with his love for her.  Mike will let Brett go and be “flirtatious” with other men, while she completely disregards him and his feelings.  Cohn is like an unwanted puppy when it comes to Brett – he follows her around everywhere and continues to bother the group after he overstays his welcome.  Cohn, I think, is the antithesis of a hero as he does not display the characteristics that Romero does.  Cohn is spineless and does not give people any reason to treat him with respect.  He complains throughout the story, like when talking to Jake about Brett, and he is also very negative, like when he talks to Jake about death coming to them soon.  Romero, on the other hand, shows how he is positive and strong-willed throughout the story.  What I think defines Romero as a hero is not his talents in the bull ring or his ability to acquire the love of beautiful women, but how he is defeated.  The scene where Cohn attacks everybody and gets into a fight with Romero, Romero doesn’t give up and shows a dignified defiance to Cohn each time he gets up.   Romero endures the punishment that he is given, and shows how a hero’s will is not broken when he is beaten.  Cohn is verbally brutalized by the people he surrounds himself with.  He deals with punishment without honor and just takes it, not endure, but takes the verbal abuse like he was the one wounded in the war, not Jake.  Romero then wins the love of Brett and they go off, but then they split up.  Romero keeps his dignity and is left untainted by Brett when the go their separate ways.  Romero shows how he and his generation are heroes in society, a quality that Hemingway portrays as being absent in the lost generation.

                I see our modern heroes as people who are generally closer to perfect than most people.  A hero can be someone who has done great things for society like Mandela, King or Gandhi.  A hero can also be someone who is remembered for doing a single great action, like a football player who makes a spectacular 30-yard catch with no time on the clock and scores the winning touchdown after being down five points in the Super Bowl.  A hero who does something that inspires people because what they have done is amazing.  Romero today would be seen as great but I would not look at him as a hero because I wouldn’t be reading his life in a novel and seeing how he contrasts with the other characters, nor would I imagine him doing something that would truly be seen as great.

Turgenev Reflection

In The Execution of Tropmann, Ivan Turgenev writes about his experience at the execution of an accused murder in Paris in 1870.  He explains his opposition towards capital punishment and why it’s wrong.  But to get his point across as to why it’s wrong, he writes in a very non-aggressive tone, but he does so successfully.  Turgenev used vivid imagery about what he experienced in Paris to show his opposition towards capital punishment.  He described how the people he was with before the execution were very anxious as to how the “performance” would go, how the crowd of civilians yearned to see their fellow man die, and how Tropmann may have been the calmest person in Paris that day.  But these all represented key factors as to why Turgenev thought this was wrong.  He could sense how the officials whom he was with had also questioned whether putting a man’s death up for display was right.  He also showed the crowd was like an entity that thrived on the misfortunes (as Turgenev would describe them) of others.  He left very subtle points throughout the text that would further progress his point of view, but these subtleties became a hackneyed theme throughout the text.  He led the readers to a very anticlimactic ending through these subtle images that made me think “get to the point already.”  But what I thought was the most important element in his essay was the use of imagery.  He described every detail so well that it would be hard for the reader not to place themselves besides the characters and events in the text.  But he used the imagery to give the readers a mental vision of how he wanted them to see the execution.  He gave the reader little choice but to follow his path through the execution, thus arguing his point successfully by manipulating the reader, without ever making a blatant argument, which gave his non-aggressive tone justification.  His purpose was obvious.  He wrote a persuasive narrative about execution.  His intent was to persuade his readers to understand that capital punishment is wrong because of the spectacle that people in his time romanticized.  I, however, am not against capital punishment, but I agree with what he is saying was wrong about it.  I understand why he thought that the idea of a “performance” is wrong, because death should not be a form of entertainment.  But that does not mean that we should be without it.  This essay was written 140 years ago and the same cultural attitudes do not apply to the present.  People today rarely will witness an execution, and if so not for entertainment.  So no, I do not agree with Turgenev’s outlook on capital punishment, but I do understand and agree with his opposition towards the idea of an execution being a form of entertainment.

Blog #14

A secret is something that is kept hidden from others.  But secrets are starting to disappear due to people being spontaneous, or having the urge to tell people something, or because they are being careless on the Internet.  I agree that the Internet is the nemesis of secrecy because of how many people can easily gain information on others because somebody was venting and accidentally pressed "enter".  Even if taken down within seconds, all of their peers online would have seen the newest post about that one girl, who did that one thing, with this one person, on that one day.  This is an example of how the Internet is the nemesis of secrecy because with the click of one button, many people can be in on the newest, not-so-secret secret.

Cowboys... Yeeha?

Elrich describes cowboys as being sensitive, fun-loving and hardworking guys.  She describes them in these ways based on her experiences in Wyoming.  She describes them in a positive way as having good qualities and traits that are different from the cowboy stereotype. Since I thought her tone was admiring, this fit her purpose because she wanted to show how cowboys really were and conveyed it because she told readers her feelings in a positive way.