The Simpsons

So I started my project thinking I was going to write about Jaws, but I wasn't able to narrow my topic down to a strong, social issue worth arguing. My alternative is now the Simpsons (Laura, Lindsey mentioned that you were doing that as well so I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to copy you! I just hope I can argue it as well as you can!) The main argument of my paper is going to deal with the family issues expressed in the episodes and how it was a drastic flip from the idea of the perfect, white-picket fence type family. Instead, Matt Groening turned that image on his head, showing that your family doesn't need to be perfect, we all have our issues. After a generation of people who grew up feeling that pressure, the Simpsons provided the relief people wanted in getting rid of that image and living a more free lifestyle. At the type the show originated, the edgy idea of a dysfunctional family took on some hefty criticism, but quickly gained respect in the way they depicted their messages. The jokes, sarcasm, and parody have attracted many viewers by taking problems and turning them into something to laugh at. Multiple age groups are able to relate to the show because of the age range in characters and the different messages that each individual can get out of the show. There's an underlying message of not taking life so seriously, everything will be fine in the end. The show is unique because it takes these sensitive cultural issues and mocks them in a way that is non-threatening, to where people don't (or most don't) get offended by them. It makes people look at life's problems in a different light, seeing another side, and being able to laugh at yourself for how you may be able to relate to it. I think this is why so many people like the show because our world has become so serious. If we can adopt some of those laugh-at-yourself type values into our own lives, people would probably be much more relaxed and far less judgmental. I mean, how much more problematic can we get than Homer, d'oh.

Hmm, this is tough because I'm not a big fan of looking at my own work (I know, not exactly a good thing). But I think for this purpose I will assess my close reading essay. In all, I would myself a middle because there are strong elements to my paper, such as explaining and relating sources to the overall theme - making them have a purpose. On the otherhand, I would like to revise the work and try to make it a little more focused or succint. Some parts may seem unclear because of the way I stated certain ideas, but I think my ideas are on the right track, and I've provided in depth analysis for my argument. I have attempted to explain why this subject material is important to the readers, but if revised, I could make my reasoning clearer. Overall, I want to make my paper clearer and more fluid. Getting the audience to see why Krakauer's epigraphs were so important and influential in his writing is crucial to my purpose; along with being able to see a connection out of context to the outside world.

I think that his credibility could really go either way after his recount of his own story. In many ways, it made me appreciate Chris and Krakauer so much more because it added in a personal interest element. I was exposed to a deeper side of both men and was able to relate better. Krakauer's critical analyzing was important for helping the audience understand himself, and Chris. Whether Krakauer is manipulating the details of Chris's life to meld better with his own, it's hard to say since Chris isn't here as living proof. Our basis and trust have to come from what Krakauer has told us, and the pieces seem to fit the puzzle. But on the otherhand, emotion is able to twist certain details in our favor, possibly creating bias in his conclusions of Chris's life and personality. While some may have doubts, I am beginning to trust Krakauer more and more as the book goes on; maybe just because I like the story, I'm not really sure. Either way, I think Krakauer is a great writer. If he is inaccurate or trying to make Chris relate to himself, well, I guess he's got me fooled.