Marie Howe “What The Living Do”

Marie Howe “What The Living Do” After Loss, is a very profound interview with National Public Radio on Howe’s poetry.  It is an interview with the Poet Marie Howe on poems she has written.  They talk on death that Howe has written on, and also what the living or Marie Howe live with this.  She starts by reading a poem about her brother who died of an aids related death.  She then talks about the context that his death happened in.  Howe also includes discussion her family and the “left hand Christian” life they led.  She also talks also of her other siblings, specifically her brother and when her dad shaved his head.  She recalls it taught him to be able to walk away and not look back.  She then goes on to talk about the death of her mother.  Howe talks about how her mother’s death made her think of all the pain of child birth her mother went through.  In particularly the pain her mother went through delivering her.  She then talks a little about her mom how she was always pregnant.  The last poem she talks about is written on her Brother Billy’s death.  Howe talks about how when she finds herself lost in life and needing direction she can always turn to her deceased friends.  They have already passed through the “frightening door” and always speak to her and tell her to do whatever brings her joy.     

These poems are very powerful because they illustrate tragedy and how one may deal with it.  In Howe’s case it is death from people who are very close to her.  I can relate to this because I have had family members die as well.  Howe illustrates very well how it does change ones everyday life.  I think the way that Howe talks about death is perfect.  A loss of someone very close is always a tragedy.  However, it is more important on how one deals with it.  Through Howe’s language it is clear that she has coped with the death of those she loves.  She looks not on the death itself but the good things they shared, seeming very much at peace with their death.   

Howe uses very powerful language throughout the interview.  What really stood out to me is the analogy she made with death at the very end.  She said being there with Billy when he died was reassuring and comforting.  This was similar to jumping of the high dive the first time and being scared; when your friend goes here I’ll do it first.  She said watching a friend do it first made it reassuring that it was ok.

“Sometimes one is enough” By Frank Deford

“Sometimes one is enough” By Frank Deford is a radio speech about how professional sports drag on championships way to long.  He talks mainly about the World Series and how it is absurd to have a seven game series.  That in the olden days before radio and T.V. it was understandable because all profits came from tickets to the games.  However now it just makes the series boring.

I agree with Deford.  Seven game series take the excitement out of watching the game.  If the World Series was a three game series like Deford suggests I would be on the edge of my seat watching.  However, people are relentless to change Americas past time because that’s how it has always been.  When some things like sports are in too much of an excess they lose their appeal to me.  I can understand how some people may like the extended play, but to me it just takes the excitement out.  Although this may seem like a childish argument people care because they either like change or they don’t.  When dealing with a spot like baseball many people associate it with America, and it being “Americas past time”.  Most people don’t want to change that.       

“Old Glory” By James Bassler

               While touring the Cleveland Museum of Art a must see piece is “Old Glory” By James Bassler.  This piece stands out next to the earthly colored other pieces of the collection due to its vibrant colors.  The piece is an American flag stained with a brownish black color where the word oil can clearly stand out and the less clear letters are an “s” and an “ed” on either side of oil forming the word soiled.  When I saw this piece I immediately thought of the War on Terror and speculations by many that the only reason for U.S. involvement in the Middle East is for oil.  However, I found that I was incorrect although it is still currently applicable to current day events the art was done in 1992 long before the war on Terror was going on.  Thus leading one to the conclusion that, this piece of art was done in protest to the U.S spearheading the Gulf War. 

               This is a very strong piece of propaganda clearly protesting the Gulf War.  It speaks very loudly catching the eyes of Americans with the patriotic flag and the vibrant red, white, and blue.  Then Bassler takes that image and flips it on the viewer by staining the flag with oil.  In the oil the words oil and soiled clearly pop out.  This is a protest by Bassler claiming that the Gulf War was for the soul purpose of oil.  This quest for oil soiled the U.S.A. by partaking in unjust and greedy activities.

               This piece stood out to me because I do not agree with it at all.  It is the military force of the U.S. that allows people such as James Bassler to voice his option in such a manner and live the life he does.  However, in no way shape or form am I saying that a citizen should never question the acts of those who govern him or her.  The Gulf War was a protection of Kuwait from the over aggressive Iraq invasions.  Iraq was taking Kuwait’s land and killing its people the U.S. including many other allied forces fought the Iraq forces to restore Kuwait.  The U.S was not interested in the Oil supply so much as preserving another cultures way of life.  If one has the ability to do what is good, they have the responsibility to act; this is exactly what the U.S. was doing.

Pedigree Dog Food Advertisement

Pedigree dog food produced an ad that depicts a yellow lab digging into a street and in the upper right hang corner it reads “For strong dogs Pedigree”.  This is a very effective ad because it targets a specific audience and connects with them.  It specifically targets men who are dog owners with a lower to middle ranged income.  This can be speculated because Pedigree is a cheaper dog food then other competitors such as the Iams.   Therefore the people interested will obviously have an income comparable to that.  It can also me said that this is targeted at men because the ad applies stereotypes commonly thought of for men to a dog.  The stereotypes I am referring to is that the “ideal” man should be strong and macho.  Then in the ad one can see a dog that is digging through a road and at the top it reads “For strong dogs Pedigree”.  This is a very good use to capture the audience because men like to feel close to their dogs and Pedigree is selling the idea that there dogs can conform to basically what men want to be, strong.  Moreover, a dead giveaway that this ad is targeted for men is the colors that are used they are very deep and earthly colors mostly black and white.  Overall this ad is very efficient in capturing the audience, and also at promoting their dog food.  They single out a specific group of potential consumers and connects with them in a way that they find appealing.  This allows the men who are targeted to commit Pedigree to their mind as a brand name.  This allows men to trust this brand thus will influence purchase decisions made later on by these men.      

“What’s Love Got To Do With It?” Anjula Razdan

               Anjula Razdan wrote an article titled “What’s Love Got To Do With It?” in this article she talks about the differences of marriage from different cultures.  She uses her parents, who are product of an arranged marriage as an example.  They were originally from India where grandfathers would chose fit partners for their grandchildren.  She places this in contrast with the western romantic love or that of the US in the twenty first century.  Although Razdan herself likes the concept of western romantic love a lot she goes on to cite others and what they think.  She adds in that arranged marriages tent to work out more than the typical marriage in the US.  Razdan explains this by citing in het text “People don’t really know how to choose a long-term partner,” offers Dr. Alvin Cooper, the director of the San Jose Marital Services and Sexuality Centre and a staff psychologist at Stanford University. “The major reasons that people find and get involved with somebody else are proximity and physical attraction. And both of these factors are terrible predictors of long-term happiness in a relationship.” This is mainly attributed to the fact that many people use the media partials of a couple “living happily ever after”.  Whereas arranged marriages neglect lust and can find better compatibility of the two people.  This is shown because divorce rate is very high in the US and very low in India.  She goes on to talk about how online dating services can help to cut down this divorce rate because they act as the grandfathers in India arranging marriages.

               I agree with what Razdan is saying but only to an extent.  The culture differences must also be taken account for where in the US it is perfectly acceptable to get a divorce remarry.  In India it is not as acceptable compared to the US to be divorced.  I agree with the point that the public’s view on marriage is distorted my media and pined to a very high standard where everything is perfect.  This is very rare that things work out in real life like they are portrayed in the media.  Also I feel that it is hard to find someone who is right for the other.  However, by meeting more people one can expand their horizons and better chose someone they think is right.  Online dating can defiantly aid in this proses.

               Growing up in the US I see many things that are all sex related, whether it be an ad for any type of merchandise, a TV program or a movie.  It creates an image of perfection in my mind.  So it seems easy to connect these ideas that someone could be unsatisfied with their marriage because there partner is not perfect in every way possible.  Overall I think Razadan discusses some great points, and brings to thought many things commonly overlooked and put in one’s subconscious.

"How to Land Your Kid in Therapy" Lori Gottlieb

Psychotherapists Lori Gottlieb wrote an article titled “How to Land Your Kid in Therapy”.  In this article Gottlieb talks about the normal therapy season.  A person who has problems with their parents and the therapist must “re-parent” them.  However, the main focus of the article is not on troubled childhoods rather perfect childhoods.  Gottlieb describes one patent as having “strong friendships, a close family, and a deep sense of emptiness. She had come in, she told me, because she was “just not happy.” And what was so upsetting, she continued, was that she felt she had nothing to be unhappy about. She reported that she had “awesome” parents, two fabulous siblings, supportive friends, an excellent education, a cool job, good health, and a nice apartment. She had no family history of depression or anxiety” something was not right.  She talks more about how these patients had parents who would always step in and correct any problem their kid was having.  Gottlieb contemplates this and comes to a conclusion that these parents have done too much. 

Plainly the point Gottlieb is trying to get across is that parents who do too much are counterproductive to their kids’ wellbeing.  I do not agree with the article that parents can be too attuned or that they try and be too much of a friend to their children.  That is absurd; those things are just the basis for any human relationship.  Nonetheless as a college student my parents are still very much a part of my life, thus I can closely relate to this article.  I am not saying that my life is perfect like these patients.  However, as it seems many parents of my generation, my own included tell their kids we can do anything.  My parents give a lot of positive feedback and are always willing to listen. For me it sets the bar extremely high and failure is not an option.  However, I ask my-self where is this bar that I am expected to reach?  Loose fitting criteria can be bundled in with it like happiness, I have to love my job, and be overall successful.  The point I am making is that it leaves a lot of room where hundreds of things fall under; all of which I am told are attainable by me.   

Along with this it is important to understand a change in society.  Telling every kid they are a winner even when they are not.  Or that one’s best is always good enough.  I say this because it is not true; for me I find now and when I was younger it just blends success and failure into a gray haze.  Thus when people grow up and get a job and are where they think they should be in life it leaves them uncertain.  They know their parents will be behind them 100% of the way on anything they do, even if it is wrong they are still a winner.  So at the end of the day are these people winners?

I played football in high school as a free safety.  I was playing in a game and my team was up by three.  We were on defense and there was enough time for one more play.  As they snapped the ball I watched my receiver take off as i opened up my hips to run with him.  The quarterback hurled the ball up to the end zone.  Both of us jumped up for the ball I reached through his arms tipped the ball back up as we both fell; somehow on his way down to the ground he fumbled it around a little and pulled it in.  My team lost the game on that play that one catch that I let in.  After the game my mom said that it was a good game and I played well.  This obviously was not true and has a way of merging success and failure. 

Gottlieb has a good point and I agree with her that too much parenting can be bad for a kid.  More importantly it is a lack of structure and uncertainty of success that causes a kid to end up in therapy.  With pressure from parents it can be very hard to pick a direction one wants to take their life.  On top of that to work a lifetime towards one thing, and there is no certainty when or if success has been obtained.  This can leave anyone feeling a sense of emptiness and unhappiness.  There is great benefit in failure however, one needs to be able to recognize it and work at it in order to benefit from it.  Not be protected from it that’s what many parents fail to see.

David Foster Wallace's "Kenyon Commencement Speech"

          David Foster Wallace's "Kenyon Commencement Speech” is one that is rather far from the normal.  Wallace opens up his speech with a story saying “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?””.  This story coincides with the theme of his speech which he keeps referring to as the human “default setting”.  He talks about growing up and getting a job and how it is no fun.  So people tend to revert back to their default setting, where everything is about you, other people are slowing you down, in your way and you immediately get upset or flustered.  Wallace points out an obvious point that we only know life from our own view and that all information we perceive is through are interpretation.  So this default setting is hard to avoid however if you think about it you can change it.  By putting yourself in others shoes you can imagine what they may be going though that makes them act the way they do.  He talks about not letting your mind be the master of yourself as a whole.  Wallace sums it up nicely saying “That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.”  The infinite thing he is talking about is something, some being or someone that we worship and we will never be fulfilled with the amount we have.  Wallace concludes his speech by going back to the fish story and saying “this is water this is water” we all need to keep reminding ourselves to stay conscious and alive through the real world. 

In today’s culture no matter what someone does or archives it seems as though they are told they are a winner.  Obviously this is not true and I like that Wallace avoids that mentality and talks about awareness of everything around the person instead.  He talks about the default setting of a person to be like a rat race where everyone is concerned only with themselves and getting what they desire.  I find this very true for my life even know Wallace is talking of the employed life outside of collage.  I have just arrived at college and already three weeks in I can notice that I start to enter my “default setting.”  My main concern is my grades and absorbing all the knowledge I possibly can.  Thus I find that I am not as outgoing to meet new people or even have time to talk with other people.  That being said my grades will never be good enough at so the race continues.   To be able to be the master of your mind and use it as a tool is incredibly hard.   It requires being educated and understanding how to think.  Distancing oneself from the default setting and achieving what Wallace calls true freedom is something I cannot yet achieve.

 The main themes that run throughout the speech are very true.  However, he supplements his point of the mind being a terrible master saying this “It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master.”  Connecting these two points is a big stretch that I think cannot be made.  People shoot themselves in the head because it is the quickest way to kill them with a firearm.  Nerveless, Wallace has very strong themes that run through his speech that I can relate to and find true.  Wallace’s aspect on the truth about life is just another way to look at things and should be at least considered.