This American Life
Here's the space for you to comment on your TAL listening experience. Please give only a brief summary and focus more on the experience and on the format of the genre.
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 9:26 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Hey everybody!!!
I listened to the podcast for the 10 Commandments on the radio. Most of the commandments I didn't get to hear, so I'll just comment on the ones that I remember. It was really interesting listening to some of the commandments and the stories that went along with it. However, I noticed that they contradicted themselves. If you remember what I talked about today about the women who donated her kidney. She did this as a good deed for a complete stranger. However, since she thought that her mother would have a problem with it, it was important to keep it a secret, which contradicts the commandment because she is lying to her mother. In the end, however, her mother discovers the secret and is actually more happy than her daughter expected her to be.
Another commandment whose story contradicted itself was the one that said that thou shall not kill. A veteran spoke on behalf of this commandment. He emphasized how important it was for a soldier to defend his country with pride. However, when a soldier defends his country, he is subject to kill. Both sides are praying to God to win a war, and then, they head out there to the shoot their enemies, and this is completely wrong, but what can I say, that's the world.
There was a funny one I remember though. It had to do with the commandment on thou shall not steal. There was a person who liked to steal the salt and pepper shakers from this restaurant, and I think it happened to be a well- to-do person. This sort of reminded me of someone that I know who liked to take sugar packs from everywhere she went (I won't mention any names though- hehe)
Hey
So I listened to the one about Homosexuals in the psychology field. I basically went through the history of not only how psychology defined homosexuality but personal views from men who worked in the psychology field who were gay and their take on the whole situation.
Anyways, on to the structure of the broadcast. Of course their was the use of music and integration of interviews with narration but the way in which there was the usage of not only factual evidence but the personal stories of individuals from both sides of the story. And not only that but the view of the individual versus society.
I liked the way they set this particular one bounces all of the different views around allowing the audence to get the whole story, not just one side.
The first podcast I listened to was the one that Kate discussed, 81 words, about changing the DSM definition of homosexuality as a pathology. I found this broadcast interesting because so often when you hear about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and 70s, it focuses on racial and gender liberation, and this really showed how much of a struggle gays had to go through during this time as well—not only were they oppressed by having this supposed “scientific” definition placed on them claiming that their sexual orientation was a disease, but also, in order to practice psychology at the time, gays had to stay in the closet. Many of the individual stories leading up to the 1973 alteration of the DSM nomenclature I found funny, moving, or empowering: one story involved a gay psychiatrist giving a speech in a rubber Nixon mask to hide his identity; another discussed a survey of gay and heterosexual men conducted by a woman named Evelyn Hooker, and because psychologists were unable to distinguish between the two groups and in fact deemed 2/3 of them “well-adjusted,” this challenged the notion at the time that homosexuality was a disease—for if it was, it should have been easy to identity the gays from the non-gays.
I really liked the structure of the whole podcast: since it was set up as a narrative, with Alix Spiegel’s narration interspersed throughout, I felt like I went through the whole adventure with the members of the “GAYPA” and the Young Turks who tried to change the definition—those oppressive 81 words of the definition binding them--, through the ups and downs, the trials and tribulations, the climax and the resolution. With the stories of various gay activists like Gold throughout telling their own story, I rooted for them and felt more pulled into the story. It was a huge release for me when Spitzer, the man in charge of the nomenclature at the APA, finally decided to change the definition so that homosexuality was only a disease if a gay himself had a problem with it (and by 1987 it was taken off the DSM list of diseases altogether). Another part of the structure that I liked was, as Kate mentioned, how varied it was: it switched back and forth from different recorded sources like interviews so that the listeners got many different perspectives and were never bored by one droning voice. At the same time, however, there was still the unity of Spiegel’s narration as well as that of Ira Glass connecting everything back to the theme and main ideas. Furthermore, I really enjoyed Glass’s narration at the beginning: it seemed so random at first—he was talking about how strange it is that people cherish pens that were used to sign very important legal documents—so that the listener starts off intrigued and wanting to know how this possibly connects into the issue of gays in psychology. Finally, I thought the music was very appropriate. It never detracted from what was going on and kept the piece flowing, especially because it would play in between segments and then for a little while people were talking (i.e. it would never stop abruptly).
The other piece I listened to that I found fascinating was Habeus Schmabeus, which was about Guatanamo Bay. I’ve heard snippets about the events occurring there, but this expose really revealed the level of brutality that is going on there, this under-wraps example of government corruption and atrocity. It saddened me so much to hear the horrible things that prisoners have been put through—being raped, tortured, put in ice cold rooms with very little clothing on—all so that their spirits would break and they would reveal information about the terrorism they have supposedly taken part in. The truth is that because the US offered so much money to other countries to give over their terrorists, the nations would offer random people just to secure the money. Then, many innocent souls would have to suffer unnecessarily in this pit of despair where “different rules applied” because these people “did not deserve” the rights of traditional prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. These people did not even get the right of habeus corpus—to hear the crimes they were accused of—nor would they get to see/hear the evidence against them in their combatant status review trial. In addition, the evidence for why these people were held in the first place was tenuous. One man was accused of being in certain areas of high terrorist activity, though the evidence did not reveal what he was doing there or when he was there; one man was held because his friend was supposedly a suicide bomber (even though he really was not); another was being held captive for composing an innocent satire of Bill Clinton. I was sickened that in this supposed land of democracy such blatant disregards for human rights and laws are occurring, and not only is the president sanctioning this but so little is done by others to change it!!!! Despite the fact that it realizes so few people held at Guatanamo are actually dangerous, the government continues to detain them so that it doesn’t have to admit it made a mistake. After hearing this broadcast, I REALLY want to join Amnesty International!
Some things structurally I liked about this broadcast were, again, the music tying together various segments and the variations on the sources, each revealing a different part of the story through interviews and such. The interviews with some of the detainees were especially powerful. Like in 81 Words, I liked how the story wasn’t entirely chronological: in between telling the tale of a detainee like Botter (I’m sure I just butchered his name…), there would be interspersed other stories and even some pertinent history that was especially interesting! I really enjoyed hearing this totally different perspective on the English Civil War revealing that after the war had ended, the Puritans, who the man speaking refers to as crazy “religious fundamentalists,” were persecuted and denied habeus corpus by the king’s adviser, Lord Clarendon. Denying people their right to habeus corpus was a disaster then: Clarendon was impeached and the Habeus Corpus Act (1679) was enacted to prevent the denying of this right ever again. I thought that the historical background really made the broadcast more interesting and helped connect what is happening in the present day to a similar situation in the past, a situation that we could learn from. Finally, I liked how in both podcasts, though the topics at hand were really serious, there was also some humor tied into both the narration and the interviews that helped liven it up a little bit (though the subjects were never treated in a flip manner, which I thought was an appropriate way of handling the situation).
Host introduces the guest Rebecca. Rebecca explains that when she was a kid, her friend Rachel told her that her dad was the tooth fairy. Then music starts playing when Rebecca tells her mother that the tooth fairy is Rachel’s dad. She stops talking for a little bit and then the music plays a little louder then Rebecca starts talking again. The music then slowly becomes a little lower and then louder and then lower etc. Then they integrate a discussion with Dr. Allison Gopnik and her view of kid logic.
Then they talk about how kid logic is logical but completely wrong. The music continues to softly play in the background. When they change subject or after they make a very good statement, the music plays louder.
Interview children with the same questions about what the tooth fairy does with all the teeth. After the interview, music plays. Then music slows down and they talk about the conclusion about the interviews and connect it to the logic of children.
The show goes from interview with adults reflecting back on past, to interviews with children, to interviews with adults who talk about their children. When the father finishes telling the part of the story the music plays and then he finishes telling the story. I like all the different perspectives. =] Through the different perspectives, the listeners can see how kids use a series of deductions to come to terms with a different subject.
Music plays after each change of subject.
Then they integrate interviews about a man talking about his crush and the woman who was his crush. The man named Howie Chackowicz talks about how he tried all these methods to make his crush notice him. Then, the crush begins to talk and counters everything that Howie said. Music plays after the crush’s final words on how she didn’t notice Howie.
Music plays during commercial.
Then another perspective of how kid logic sometimes prevails over adult logic. Music plays softly in background while Chabon tells a short story from Werewolves In Their Youth. Music adds mystery and suspense. I kind of started to doze off so I’m not sure what happened here!!! The host concludes and then music plays very loudly.
Little kids start singing!!! It was very cute especially because they are talking about kid logic.
The host introduces what Julie Hill is going to talk about. Then Julie begins to talk. Her son asks the mother if babies replace dying people. Then Julie talks about the Lion King and the “cycle of life.” Her son, Nick, thinks that if babies weren’t born then maybe his dad would still be alive. Julie’s husband’s brain was shrinking. Soothing music plays in the background. Integrating interviews by Julie asking a question and then Nick answering. Music plays.
The end: host says that Julie’s husband died. Music plays. Then he names a bunch of people and advertises This American Life and how people can watch it on television and on the web. Music plays.
I really liked all the different perspectives and how they integrated and connected all the different stories. I loved how they interviewed the children along with the adults reflecting back on what they were thinking of when they were children.
I did Allure of the Mean Friend! 3/23/3007
Structure: Host introduces subject and then they interview the children. One kid says “She thinks she has the rhythm and the gear” which I think was hilarious!!! By interviewing the children at school, where popularity is the most important and evident, it draws the listener in. Then they connect to a wider range of people who are interested in business, politics, etc. The host introduces the several acts with very interesting titles that make the listener want to stay and listen to the show instead of changing to another channel. They talk about the “in crowd” and the “out crowd” which is a lot about fitting in which really relates to what people experience. Act 1: bully talks about how people “crave” to have someone to be mean to them.
Act 2: scientific experiment: waitresses being nice to half of her guests and mean to the other half. When the waitresses were mean, they got more tip. It’s sort of like reverse psychology which is hilarious. The stories are very interesting. They interview the waitresses and her friends, thus, getting different perspectives. The host says “It is not that aloofness pays but that niceness doesn’t pay” because the waitress got more money when she was mean to a regular customer and didn’t get as much when she was nicer. It goes from the host introducing and then the interviews to back up what he says. They go right into the narration after introducing the subject. Act 4 follows this format.
They use hilarious stories that people normally wouldn’t think would happen. Examples are the waitresses and the father “billing his son for the costs of his whole life.” This keeps the interest of the listener with different voices, perspectives, and views.
Hey there all!
I listened to the podcast for "The Allure of the Mean Friends", and "It Seemed Like A Good Idea at the Time". I have to say I was skeptical when I started listening to them because I wondered how funny they could really be. I really didn't think that they would have anything interesting to say but they turned out to be two of the funniest things I've ever heard. The first podcast-The Allure of the Mean Friend- was my favorite out of the two. It discusses why the meanest and cruelest kids always seem to be the most popular in school but they then incorporated that into the work for and other everyday positions. They said that something about the control and power gace them a certain mysterious and "alluring" air, making them tempting. They also looked into the type of people who work to become slaves to the "mean friends" and expressed a masochist/sadist relationship which is something that we discussed later in class but I don't remember why. The second was based on what seemed like good decisions gone really, really bad. They focused on schemes and ideas created and manifested both individually and in groups that truned into grandiose failure. They looked at how easily people's minds can be led to think that something is so right but is really the complete opposite.
One thing I was thinking about the poscasts while listening to them was that they reminded me a bit of explications. The way they integrated people's different interviews seamlessly almost as if it was read from a script. Also the format throughout the whole podcast was uniform and was consistent throughout the other podcasts. They started off with an example or story that then led into the theme which the introduced, and then follwed with the different acts and a short summary of what they were about. One thing I noticed is that they weren't afraid to laugh or crack jokes during the podcast. Though they seemed to have practiced and didn't go into the discussion unprepared, they atmosphere was still casual and relaxed and Ira spoke with the those he interviewed as if they were good friends. Another thing I really liked was the integration of music. Not only did it introduce a pause but when they played it during an actual act, it helped really get into the story and made it seem more personal.
Overall I loved the podcasts I listened too. I guess "The Allure of the Mean Friend" was pretty popular from other people that I have talked to. I think you've gotten me addicted to This American Life Ms. Clapp!
I listened to "Ask Your Father," which is episode 289, if anyone wants to listen.
I found Act I to be really arresting. Its about a man, Lenny, who discovers a huge secret about his family (don't read the synopsis! It really ruins the shock), and then has to reconcile it with his past. I've listened to a few TAL episodes, and I think this was one of my favorite stories. I took a few notes about its structure. Ira Glass didn't really talk very often, and really let Lenny and his story speak for themselves. The story was made up of studio interviews and a final tape recording, which allowed Glass to sort of prompt along Lenny, but really allowed him to tell his own story and explain how he felt about certain things. It seemed that Glass was less of a narrator and more of a commentator in this story, which was interesting.
Act II was sort of silly -- about a man whose father is searching for extraterrestrial life. It was silly because of the subject matter, but it gets pretty poignant at the end when the narrator, Paul Tough, asks his father if this quest was the most meaningful project of his life and he says yes. Tough explains later that he wished he had said that raising a family was his most meaningful endeavor. This story was told much differently than the first because the narrator was just telling his own story. Actually, what I really liked about this story was that it was kind of lighthearted. It was still really emotional, but after Act I, it was a good way of balancing the entire broadcast.
What I really like about This American Life is that it allows people to tell their own story. Ira Glass is there to ask a few questions and paraphrase a few parts, but it isn't really an interview show. He allows them to take the story down its own path, which makes for many interesting revelations. What I particularly liked was when the storytellers were talking and suddenly it was like they had realized something, some feeling, or an aspect of the story that they hadn't been able to articulate until that moment.
Hello all...I listened to the By Proxy and the 24 Hours at the Golden Apple podcasts.
By Proxy was about how we become proxies for people—husbands, wives, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends…The program asks a central question: When you become someone’s proxy, are you doing what they would want or what you want? The first act was about a guy whose friend always wanted him to make her decisions for her. The second act dealt with how interpreters in Iraq right now deliberately mistranslate in order to keep tensions at a minimum.
Quicky on 24 Hours
24 Hours interviews people at a diner called the Golden Apple—the owner, regulars, non-regular customers, waitresses. We meet: Pete, one of the owners of the Golden Apple who swears that dessert sales have been cut 50% because the motor that keeps the dessert display rotating is broken, a guy who was the youngest butcher in Illinois at 8 years old, a smoker and drinker who works at a purification center, and a waitress who brings homemade cookies in for the homeless around the diner on Christmas Eve. We almost meet someone whose nickname is Robert. At the Golden Apple, they sell Mickey Mouse pancakes, “arranged in violation of U.S. copyright law.”
So here are some things I noticed that are sort of common to the structure of each program. The prologue. The prologue draws the listener in. Once you listen to the prologue, you feel like you’ve just got to hear the rest. The musical interludes throughout the podcast seem to give the listeners a short little interim period to contemplate what has just been said or a question that has just been posed. The music that concludes an act always seems to be a song that you would want to listen to after hearing that particular story or interview—everything speaks to the theme that is central to the program. Humor, a lot of times, is a huge part of the podcasts. Another things is that the things Ira Glass says in the narration are things that people from almost anywhere in this country can identify with—an observation we’ve made, a question we’ve thought about or that relates to us, reactions we’ve had to similar situations. A person from any state could listen to and enjoy what they’re listening to.
Sometimes in the program, what they did was contemplate ordinary things that happen all around us and they threw out a question that just shed light on some really interesting
dimension to that ordinary thing. Everything just kept the listener continually engaged.
The interviews, the narration, the music—each one brings a layer to the program, and they’re integrated in a way so that each complements the other. Collectively they just really create all the dimensions of the scene or situation and it’s almost as if you’re just immersed in the story.
The people introduced in the program are always characterized really well. In 24 Hours, the co-narrator (not Ira Glass, but someone else) introduces a regular at the diner saying that he is this, he does that for a living, and that he ends each sentence with “And uh…that’s it.” Then they play this bit where they had interviewed him and each one of his responses ends with “And…that’s it.”
Lastly, I feel like sometimes in a program, they end with a piece they began with—it’s like you went a circle, you’re still standing at the same point but having gone around the circle, it’s with a different perspective, and sometimes an answer for the question they posed at the start of the podcast.
The two podcasts that I listened to were Testosterone and Superpowers.
Testosterone
The crew of This American Life decided to get their testosterone levels checked which was the main reason for that week's show. They split the crew into male and female categories and saw which person came on top with the most testosterone in his/her body and how that correlated with personality types with high testosterone. There was a lot of debate over which male would have the highest because one person had a lot of muscles but another was balding, both of which were characteristics for high testosterone. In the end, it turned out that the one gay man participating in the testing had the highest level of testosterone by almost two times as much compared to the other straight workers. The winner jokingly commented before the results were broadcasted that he chewed spearmint gum instead of winterfresh gum so that might have just made his results "refreshing". A lot of the men were surprised but not so much the women. The women had all predicted the very outspoken coworker Julie. Julie, however, felt that her high level of testosterone meant that she was bossy. It was a very funny broadcast segment but there was also some serious moments as well such as when they interviewed two people: a male who had previously been a female and took high levels of testosterone to change her sex and an anonymous man who couldn't produce testosterone for a short while. Both noted how their personalities had changed, one of the funniest being that when Griffin, the previously born female, started taking the testosterone, science began to make sense, especially physics.
Superpowers
This pertains mostly about the glitz and glam that surrounds superpowers. As a child, we all wished we had them and there are times that parents with they had that extra arm to pick up the toy or super speed to wash the dishes. There was once a girl, Zora, who desired to be as close to a superhero as possible. She made a list of things that she would have to know or do in order to come close to being a hero. She stuck to this list and made sure that she had enough time to master her skills. Her determination led her to finish high school by the time she was 15 years old. It is just an example of the appeal that superpowers have on people as a whole. There is also some sense of reality tied in with it. People don't want heroes that have pointless powers or unrealistic powers, which is why many comic book series fail. Sometimes, the ideas are not fully thought out or just not captivating enough or plausible.
Structure
In the prologue, Ira opens up with something interesting or something that everybody can relate to, such as his own creation of his superhero. Then he introduces the topic and has guest speakers that somehow relate to the topic at hand. There is always relevant music in the background, especially when they are switching interviews. Ira mostly lets the person talk and usually asks questions or comments about how cool or interesting that event was. He always introduces the speakers in an interesting fashion before the listener even hears the person speak. I definitely have to agree with Jill when she mentioned how the crew of This American Life wasn't afraid to crack jokes. I remember in the Testosterone podcast, the male with the lowest levels commented how it wasn't fair that he had the lowest amount of testosterone. If he couldn't get the highest level of testosterone in public radio, where could he? It also wasn't fair since he knew what Sportcenter was, but the gay guy that one didn't! The stories may have an obvious connection to the topic of hand, but sometimes, it takes a windy road that manages to get to the point.
Since I listened to the podcasts with Jill, I watched the same ones as her, the allure of mean people and when good decisions go bad. I liked both of them, as they were both very funny and informative. There's one question I had while listening to this podcast...if they like have an outline of what to do before they start recording for an episode, or if they just randomly stumble onto some stories that they can interlace. I was leading more towards the former, as the host really does move seamlessly between subjects and events. I also like both the broadness and specificity of each subject...if that makes any sense. Like they touch on an interesting and unique topic, but they have so much room to expand upon (I hope that makes sense) Anyhoo, I like to keep it short and to the point, so there it is. I hope our podcast can be as good as the episodes on TAL!
Hello everybody.
So I'm still not sure how I feel about the podcasts. I'm not too hip on the whole technology aspect of education.
Okay, so like Jill, I also listened to "The Allure of the Mean Friend," and I also finished listening to "Fiasco" from Friday (I don't like leaving things unfinished!) I really liked how both of the themes of the shows were really universal. I felt like I could relate to wanting to be friends with the meanest girls or trying so hard to succeed and just letting things fall into...well...a fiasco. It seems like most of the stories anyone can see where the interviewee or story is coming from. It's like a "universal theme" that can be applied to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
I also agree with Mish, that I love that This American Life allows people to tell their own stories. It's great, how people are able to share how they are impacted by themes such as these--sometimes funny, sometimes sad, but seemingly always interesting.
I hope This Malden Life turns out just as good!
Oh, hello there! Well, the two podcasts that I listened to were:
Somewhere on the Arabian Sea, and 20 Stories in 60 Minutes.
The first podcast took place on board a Navy aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, engaging in warfare with Afghanistan. The purpose of this podcast was to show what life is like on the ship. I found this to be extremely amuzing because my initial expectations were that I'd be hearing about people loading bombs or flying planes and other things, but this took a weird spin when the first sailor they talked with just loaded vending machines for 12 hours a day, commenting that Snickers were the favorite candy on the ship. We also met with various rock bands that formed on the ship, and also sailors whose life turned around at the viewing of a commercial for the Navy. ("I think it was a Godsmack song.") It was extremely funny and it was really odd that although there are 5,000 people on board, only about 50 of them actually deal with combat. We hear about certain rules where there is no dating, and even sitting closer that "two butt-widths" apart was considered a date between two sailors, and they had to be spread apart. When these interviews were being conducted, the chiefs caught word about it and red flags were raised. The host was talked to about it and how he violated the protocol. It was a really good broadcast and made me really feel what it was like to be on a Navy aircraft carrier.
The second podcast was just a compilation of various stories to see how many they could fit within one hour of broadcasting. I'm sorry to say that I really could not follow most of this podcast because everything was so disjointed. I could not follow on many of the stories. (something to learn when we are doing our podcasts! =)) There was a story about the actor who played Joshua on Friends actually being recognized in public. It ends when a man asks him for a picture with his girlfriend, and so the actor stood with the girl and took a picture with her, kissing her on the cheek. In actuality, the man wanted the actor to take the picture, because he didn't know who he was! Another one was when a man asked a restaurant owner about rumors that a child ate pudding when one of the chefs urinated in it, and the owner was furious with him. The stories were fun to listen to, but with so many of them it was really hard to follow.
Hi, I listened to "My Repuation" and also "The 10 Commandments," which I found much more interesting..
"My Reputation," #330, basically showed how people can ruin their own reputations, or have them ruined, and also facing your own reputation..
The bulk of it was mainly how politician Steve Vaillancourt tried to ruin fellow politician, Raymond Buckley's reputation by saying that he was in posession of "child pornography," when Buckley says that he wasn't. I though it was interesting to hear this story from the own politician's point of view, considering we never really see the accused ones story in the media, (celebrities and politicians alike.)
However, I enjoyed the "Ten Commandments" much more..
Some of the stories were shocking yet funny to me, espcially the man describing his battle with Christianity and.. his manhood; one thing I found funny was how constricting religion can be or how constricting one can make it- his entire youth he tortured himself thinking something was wrong with him. This aspect of religion I dont agree with; I feel as though religion, presumably a good thing, laid tons of false guilt on an innocent man. What I found even funnier was the very ending; this is what I like about the way This American Life set it up: althoug you could see the point of the interview, and it did make a good point, it also ended on a funny and ironic note, to keep the topic from staying seriously and dramatic.
Also, the way they followed the commandments from first to last was very interesting, providing an interview for each. I definitely enjoyed this one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
For my two podcasts, I listened to Liars and Crime Scene.
In Liars, Ira Glass first gives a brief introduction to the topic by speaking about something related to lying, and something we’re all familiar with: April Fool’s Day. While almost everyone lies, some people get out of hand and lie so much that they believe their lies are reality. Then Ira Glass introduces who else is going to speak. Co-host Margy Rochlin makes a brief statement; then many voices come one after another to support that statement. These same voices would be part of extensive interviews later on. After each interview, the co-host speaks for a few minutes to summarize the last interview and introduce the next one (sometimes, by setting a scene). At one point, she switches from story to fact as she introduces two professors who speak. Music would play in between the interviews and at the end, with each song supporting the basic theme of the subject. The music would seem to come on perfectly; just when the speaker seemed to need a break or was pausing. Music also plays at the end followed by the host again making a wrap up by citing something factual to support the whole theme and making an analogy to show that the whole theme of the podcast relates to everyday life.
To briefly summarize the podcast, in Act I, a woman talks about her ex-husband being a compulsive liar; he would lie about his mother dying, when in fact she was still alive. Compulsive liars would create a new person for themselves, then leave that person and body when things didn’t work out, and be a different person hoping the new person would work out. As to why these people become compulsive liars is because they want to control and to know that they can deceive others or they want to impress and receive admiration, since people generally believe what they hear. Another guy then speaks about his roommate lying about where he was from, lying about his father being rich, and lying about growing up with the Kennedy children. Two other speakers get interviewed to tell their stories. It was really interesting to see how all these people interacted with compulsive liars. Some would keep believing the compulsive liars, hoping they would change. What the liars said was exactly what the others wanted to hear, so they kept believing them. Others feel bad for believing that they’re compulsive liars because it would almost be like thinking they’re crazy, so they just go along with the story.
In Crime Scene, the same structure is basically evident except that at the beginning, Ira Glass reveals a brief introduction to each segment/Act in the podcast to prepare the listeners for what to come. In the prologue, there is a brief intro to a crime scene itself and how it is similar to a novel in the details that it can reveal. In Act I, a criminologist explains the massive evidence that can be found in each crime scene. In Act II, a man who cleaned up crime scenes for a living was interviewed, and the places he had to clean up seemed to be quite gross after just hearing a description of it. In Act III, the interviewee is a man who returned to his own crime scene to do something good to correct all his past wrongs. Finally in Act IV, a short story is narrated about a boy who could find lost things with his senses without needing evidences from a crime scene. It was amazing to see how all these stories could be introduced that seemed disconnected at first to each other, but all ended up tying back to the main theme of a crime scene.
My two podcasts were Kid Logic and Notes on Camp...I really enjoyed both of them because of the way the stories were all tied into the overarching theme (I hope the class podcast comes out somewhat like that).
Kid Logic was about the way kids, especially younger children, think about things and come to conclusions that, to them, are completely logical but in reality make no sense. Another part of it was just about how kids perceive things differently from adults. There was this really funny story about a girl who saw her dad putting money under her pillow when her tooth fell out and concluded that her dad was the tooth fairy. She told her friend about it and her friend became convinced that the father of the girl was infact the tooth fairy, failing to make the connection to parents in general. She talked about how much she idolized her friend's father after finding out his "secret identity." Another story revolved around a little boy's crush on a girl in kindergarden and how he remembered the experience as an adult verses how that girl remembered it years later. It was sad how important this feeling was to him, but the girl had pretty much thought he was a loser when they were kids. Sometimes it seems that kids are almost more observant and perceptive than adults because they don't rationalize through everything, so they oftentimes take things for face value...it's the sort of innocence that adults try to protect in children. I liked the form of that particular podcast because the incidents were all different and funny in their own way but showed all sides of the theme.
Notes on Camp was a series of stories that attempted to bridge the gap between "camp people" and "non-camp people." Those who had attended camp in their youth found it to be the greatest thing in the world and reminisced about the experience constantly; those who had never attended camp simply couldn't understand the wonders of it. Being the former, I could definitely related to the various stories presented in the podcast. There was an interview with a camp couselor who talked about how much he had changed because of camp and how significant camp was in his transition to adulthood. Having attended camp for 7 summers, I understood what he meant and it made me think back to all the things I loved about camp. One story stood out to me in particular because it was downright hilarious: a woman recalls being 12 and having her mom (who was a foreigner and didn't quite grasp the concept of "camp") send her and her two brothers (ages 10 and 7) to a camp...not a summer camp...but a camp ground with a tent and some groceries. She left them completely alone for a week not realizing that "camp" was a place where kids were supervised. She was merely aware of it as an important part of a child's life. The girl and her brothers had to pretend that their parents were with them...they'd yell bye to random cars and would call into the tents letting their "parents" know that they were leaving (so the surrounding "campers" wouldn't become suspicious). After a week, the girl called her mom complaining that she wanted to go home. The mother was furious and told her that she should be greatful for such an essencial experience. Irony at its greatest. Same as with the Kid Logic podcast, the format was great in that it incorporated the various aspects of camp life and the interviews were really touching. I also like Ira's intervention because he always has something relavent to say to tie in the interview or story. He seems to really understand each topic. Overall, I enjoyed the assignment and can't wait to create our own podcast.
I listened to the “Ten Commandments” broadcast, the “Allure of the Mean Friend” broadcast, and I finished listening to the “Fiasco” broadcast.
The Ten Commandment broadcast was pretty enlightening. The show focused mostly on Christian commandments, but some Jewish commandments were mentioned.
For example, because of a strict interpretation of what adultery is, a man believed that it was immoral to look at women from below the neck. I recall the speaker saying “I just thought of women as floating heads, you know? I couldn’t think of the rest.” As time went on, the man ended up going to a sex-aholics anonymous workshop. Surrounded by people who cheat(ed) on their spouses, single people who have had hundreds of sexual partners, and other kinds of sexually active people, the twenty-two year old virgin was extremely out of place: he had never even kissed a woman. The speaker went on to say how he finally kicked his outrageous view of adultery, which I won’t share here, and seemed to finally be at peace with being attracted to women.
I found the Mean Friend show extremely awesome. Not only did I enjoy it for its humor, but I began to realize how mean friends make others seem even nicer. By having a mean friend around, one’s own aura of niceness is increased due to the mean friend’s attitude. Also, being the mean friend has its own perks. By being the mean friend, if you turn into the “nice” friend, people will recognize the change and embrace the new you; by lowering one’s standards of being nice, then once one is nice it’s even more noticeable!
I know, that was a stretch and a tad bit absurd, but I’m getting to my point. The entire broadcast forced me to listen carefully and follow along with each speaker and relate to the stories. As mentioned earlier today, a blind survey was conducted in which different waitresses acted both nice and mean on different weeks and calculated the difference in their tips by these variables. While acting mean, the waitress gained about 5% more in tips, which totaled about $50 extra each shift. Intense, eh? This broadcast showed me how stories don’t have be to extreme and unimaginable, just really engaging.
I guess I’ll end this with a strong recommendation for everyone to finish listening to the Fiasco broadcast, it’s well worth the time.
The two podcasts I listened to were Kid Logic and The Allure of the Mean Friend. I found them both really enjoyable and very intriguing. The one I would like to focus on is the Kid Logic. It talked about how kids used their logic and reasoning that, we as adults, find very absurd. It goes into looking at various stories about how young children come to these crazy conclusions through very reasonable logic interpretations. There were stories about how one young child’s thoughts about how to make someone fall in love with them, stories about kids thinking they are werewolves, and stories about how some kids are able to understand things that we believe to be too complicated for their understanding. I found the last segment of the show to be the most interesting. It was a story about a young boy who was trying to understand and grasp the concept of his father’s terminal illness, which caused his brain to shrink and lose all functions of his brain. It was a really sad story, and it made me want to cry so badly listening to this little boy talk about how if his father died he would the be “saddest person in the whole entire world.”
I thought the way the podcast was set up and executed was very entertaining and it kept me interested throughout the entire show. I loved the way the host spoke in a very casual manner as if he was sitting in an ordinary conversation with the listener. It made it easier to listen to because it was very casual. The transitions between segments and how they connected to each other was great and made it easy to follow from one story to the next. The host would always reiterate the topic and point being made after each segment so that everything ties together. One thing I really like is when there are other speakers and interviews incorporated into the podcast.
Overall, I really like doing this. I might just do it on my own from now on. The topics are so fun and there are so many things in them that I can relate to. I’m really excited to make our own…It’s going to be some fun stuff!
Ok I finished up Fiasco!, then listen to My Reputation, and finally The Allure of the Mean Friend.
For Fiasco!, I have to say a great listen and it gave me the understanding of how our podcast should be like. A great mix of fiction and true stories from the podcast. Let dump luke-warm oil on barbarians! That will teach them!
The second podcast was My Reputation. The first story I didn't engage me as much, while I was definitely interested in hearing a politician viewpoint as he survives an attack by a complete lying asshole, I found the second story a lot more interesting. It reminds me of a lot of people, told by many they are being "dense" or "annoying"(I know a sophomore who seems to be aware they are acting a bit thick or annoying, but still do it anyway as if they don't really accept what they doing is attracting the hostility and resentment of others). Well this is man called an "asshole," told in repeated times how much he was, but he always take it as his role and title in his group. After all, they still friends with him, can't be that serious right? Well this man decided to finally face himself, he seriously ask his friends trying to prove the claim wrong, and got back an answer he did not like, everyone really think he was one. Eventually after talking to more people one-by-one including his ex-girlfriend and mother, he have come to accept what his reputation really is. A person who does act like a complete prick and piss everyone off, when he asked his closest friend why he is still around him, he replies "I don't know, inertia?"
Really does adhere to the philosophical quote by Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living." for to live life without examining life would make a person like him, in between the line of knowing and yet not knowing. To live life unexamined would leave a person without control over himself, never knowing the consequences of his actions, never realizing the full effect of his decisions, essentially leaving his direction and destiny to anything else but himself (reminds of the being a "be-er" too). As noted earlier, it also reminded me of a sophomore who everyone loves to hate and avoid. People have told him he is being annoying, he is creeping people away, and what he said and acted is not funny.
The last podcast I listen to was the Allure of the Mean Friend which I found really interesting especially from my past experience of a bully from middle school (though unlike her who became a doctor or the sister who married the rich dentist, the guy I know is now a high school dropout , last time I heard of him. It is too bad in a way, he was known as the “smart-idiot.” Lots of potential, but never mature enough to ever use it, his intelligence was strong enough to get him into the advance class despite doing nothing, perhaps even resisting, but now I heard he not even in school anymore). Also it is a good tie-in to me after hearing the Reputation podcast on the second act. The interesting one I found was the Act 2 story. As everyone noted already, how interesting that niceness didn’t pay, I just want to point out, they did concluded that what they were going to tip was already set, so don’t think aloofness/meanness pays either, it just means going the extra mile in service brings nothing in tips.
I just have to say that I completely agree with Drew, that something nice about the TAL programs is that they have both broadness and specificity. And...that's it.
Ok, I am sorry this is so late. I forgot to post here and I just realized it when I did my WSS post. Alright, so I listened to "House of Ill-Repute" and "The Ten Commandments," which were very different.
The House of Ill-Repute had three stories; one about an old man inviting prostitutes to live in his house, which would later become a sort of crime center that attracted all the wrong people; a young kid who drops out of college and moves into an appartment building notorious for having excited gay men roam around and look for possible male partners at the building; and finally the Congress, where the dominant party uses unjust practices to ensure that its opposition never has a say in any decisions.
The Ten Commandments had a story for each of the commandments, with the first 3 or 4 grouped together into one. Most of them had a direct religious backdrop, while some concerned people I doubt attend mass regularly. There was also a variety of ways to portray the stories, which included simple story telling by a speaker and also an interview format.
The major differences, in my eyes, between the two were the audience they addressed and the over all message of the episode. The House one seemed to address all listeners and had the over all message that people can get used to these seemingly horrible things and that we need to be a little more weary about the direction our surroundings are heading. I particularly liked this. The 10 commandments one seemed like it was much more tailored to religious listeners, although I enjoyed it when I'm not particularly concerned with living my life by the commandments. The stories of the 10 commandments also didn't all fit together as nicely as the House episode, and it seemed their only tie was that they concerned commandments. They were mostly just an individual look at how that particular commandment played out in real life.
Post a Comment
<< Home