(no subject)

[xradiostatic]

we're reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman for AP lang. it's good and isn't even that long (168 pages, excluding the intro), but at times it's really hard to get through. i have 38 more pages to go. i can make it! :D

crap. i forgot that i have to do reader response journal entries for every 50 pages. :/ *facepalm*

Comments

[xradiostatic.livejournal.com]

yeah, it's the real book. it does look like cliff's notes if you look at it really fast. :P

it's basically about how different forms of communication (television, speech, written word, etc.) influences how the conversation is carried out through those forms (for instance, a lot of televangelists' sermons are made for entertainment and to attract more viewers, whereas a church that isn't broadcast on tv is more focused on the sacred traditions instead of showing off their huge church or having schemes to pull people in).

i really hope that made sense, haha.

[maliciousmotive.livejournal.com]

oh, that sounds really cool actually =)

well...i mean, the concept is really cool. i don't know how it's written (boring/hard?) and a definite minus is the journal entries. but i love reading books like that though they always like...i don't want to say confuse me and i can't think of the word i want to use, but like, you're not sure if they're misleading you or leaving out important information.

last year i read fast food nation and i mean, possibly...not the best example because everyone knows america is a fat country but i always wondered how the book would sound if it was written from the perspective of someoen who works in the fast food industry trying to convince people that fast food is okay. mostly it just makes me think of michael moore's movies (possibly because i watched Sicko today). i mean, idk how you feel about michael moore but i looooove him but i feel like you have to watch some of his movie's with a bit of skepticism because obviously he's trying to prove a point and he's going to neglect to use things that disprove his point.

wow...i just totally rambled about weird things. =]

[xradiostatic.livejournal.com]

yeah - that's how i feel too! more than once as i read the book, i wondered if any important info was being deliberately left out.

i love michael moore too! i mean, he (and other people as well) kinda has to leave out certain things so that he doesn't negate his point/reasoning, so it's almost kinda sorta....sneaky? i don't know what i mean, haha.

nah, rambling is cool. :D

[maliciousmotive.livejournal.com]

righhht, exactly. he's kinda screwed (well, in the eyes of his critics) no matter what he does because if he DOES present all the points, he'll usually wind up contradicting himself but if he doesn't include some of the points, he winds up being a hypocrite =(