Representation in Superhero Comics

     The past few years have seen some big changes in comic books. But one of the most groundbreaking is the increase of equal representation in superhero comics. In 2013, a new Ms. Marvel by the name of Kamala Khan was introduced, and quickly became a main character in the Ms. Marvel series. Khan is a Muslim-American woman, and the comics even deal with conflicts that Muslims have to deal with regarding their faith. Two other new female superheroes were added to Marvel's ever-expanding list this year: Spider-Gwen and the All-New Wolverine. I especially thought that the concept of Spider-Gwen was cool because it takes place in an alternate universe to the original Spider-man series, where Gwen Stacy gets bitten by the radioactive spider instead of Peter Parker. In addition to that, the new TV show "Supergirl" debuted this year, to very good ratings, and a Captain Marvel and Wonderwoman movie are due to come in the near future. These new female heroes and their different backgrounds have showed people that one does not have to be a male superhero to be extraordinary or exciting. Another excellent alternate portrayal of the Hulk was released this year, with Hulk as an Asian-American man named Amadeus Cho. This is extremely important to the Marvel universe, as little to no Asian individuals have been brought to light on the page or the screen. Netflix's Daredevil and Jessica Jones also were released this year, which brings further representation to those with disabilities and to strong female roles. In 2018, Black Panther (an African Superhero) will also get his chance to shine in the MCU, a movie I am greatly looking forward to see. The involvement of different cultures and genders in comics makes me very happy and excited for what's in store. Implementing a wide variety of people in this outlet of media is a great way for minorities to be able to relate to the superheroes we all love so much, and keeps the individual series fresh.

                                   

Brace Yourselves

     Anyone who knows anything knows that this year was absolutely cluttered with minions. I cannot think of a product or franchise I have seen in my lifetime that has had more advertising campaigns. Children, and even adults, are so invested in minion culture that it is obvious Dreamworks' marketing team has left a love mark. As mentioned in the documentary "The Persuaders", a love mark is something that attracts people so strongly to a brand that they can no longer provide a reason for why they like it so much; they just do. Although some people have noticed and been fed up with the excessive amounts of advertising, people everywhere just keep consuming. I couldn't even think of a reason why minions would be so likable, but they still are able to show up on numerous products and even have their own movie. Not only has Dreamworks left love marks on the general population, but also other companies who have used the minion characters on their products as well. Some of these big brands include: Tic Tacs, Amazon, Duck Brand Duck Tape, Betty Crocker, General Mills, Hasbro, Motts, Crayola, McDonalds, Twinkies (Hostess), Haribo, Nabisco, Bounty, Chiquita, and Kraft, just to name a few. It is clear that love marks have been left on these other companies as well because none of them (except maybe Chiquita bananas) have any relations to these characters, which means they are interested in them for to reasons: one because they have sparked interest or attraction in these other companies (love marks), and two because they see it as a way to sell more products to people who also feel connected to minions, and the company itself (double love mark). This outrageous cross-marketing has shown me how repetitive advertisers can be if they have the right elements to affect the right audience. Although their continuous appearances in the media have annoyed me, I guess minions were doing something right, with a box office gross of over 1.1 billion dollars.

News Talk

http://time.com/4116014/paris-attacks-ben-carson/    

     Although I myself do not mind when people use phrases that aren't their own, even if they are cliché, George Orwell did object to them in his essay "Politics and the English Language". His opinions have now caused me to notice when speakers or writers use most of their effort to say more words than needed so that they sound more convincing and credible, but really they are abusing the use of language and being uncreative. One article I looked at had quite a few of these faults. Carson's article can help anyone understand why Orwell might not like "ready-made phrases" and "mixed metaphors".
    George Orwell probably wouldn't like Ben Carson's anti-Syrian refugee article, not because of what it's arguing for, but how it's arguing. The first metaphor he uses is when he says "[stop viewing Islamic extremism] through the lens of political correctness". What does using the metaphor of a lens do for his writing? Political correctness isn't a lens because it's part of a person's conscience that they don't choose to have, and furthermore just an adjective to describe a persons' opinion. Also, what would Ben Carson do if we told him to stop seeing everything through the lens of his political incorrectness? It just wouldn't work. If he really thought changing one's natural opinions was a choice, an easier way of saying it would be to "take a harsher approach, even if not politically correct." The second faulty saying he uses is "radical Islamists and their lone wolf followers". Not only is 'lone wolf follower' an oxymoron, but the use of the term lone wolf would probably be deemed unnecessary by George Orwell. It just adds extra words that serve as epithets with odd connotations and has been used a thousand times, just not as poorly. Thirdly, Carson also says "Instead of half talk and feel-good promises, the US must defend itself with sound security measures", which is also a saying George Orwell probably wouldn't approve of. The first part of his sentence doesn't really match the second, because the US isn't trying to lie about defenses, they are actually mostly open to refugees (as Carson even SAID earlier in the article), so he's just using this as a way to make the reader think the government is lying when they're really just doing what they planned on doing. The ready-made phrases of 'half talk' and 'feel good promises' is just a way for people to think they can relate to and understand what he's saying when digging deeper reveals it makes barely any sense. Seeing it all stripped down makes it look like Carson is just dodging straight-talk by calling the governments' plan a name that doesn't even match what it really is.
    If it wasn't for Orwell's essay, a lot of these things that used to go unnoticed are now very clear to me. Although I normally don't mind these, seeing them used incorrectly and as a ploy is now something I can't ignore. It really makes me wonder how politics would be if tricky English was never used and it was just straight-talk.

MMMedia

  Media. Where to begin? It's not like my relationship with it is that much different from everyone else's. Whether we like it or not, we are all exposed to it. Without it we'd be modern-day cavemen, and not even so, since cave paintings could be considered a form of caveman media. So yes, my personal relationship with mass (or even minuscule) media is the American standard, if not more. I can automatically look down at my watch and there's Spider-Man on it. I glance to my left and a box of Crayola crayons is sitting next to me. I can hear the news that my dad is watching in the living room. The Apple computer I am writing this very post on is a portal to billions of media sources, and it plays into media itself. Basically, I only need to shift my eyes a few inches or listen a bit harder to find some kind of media ready and waiting to be consumed. It becomes a thing that I don't even have to think about, it just exists. If I had to take a count of how many times I saw or involved myself in media, the number would be tremendous, maybe even unfathomable.
  But does this mean that the media is necessarily a bad thing? Is it too controlling? I think not. I think it's an effective way of bringing information, utility, or entertainment to a person without them having to overcomplicate it for themselves. We can't totally escape it, but it's not like we're running around like chickens with our heads cut off trying to figure out how to react to social media posts, the news, ads, or what we might be watching on Netflix. Certain things actually affect us, others just blend in to everything else. It's a responsibility thing on both ends. The media providers need to keep in mind what's best for the consumers, and the consumers need to be on the lookout for hoaxes or other things that can lead to distress from the media. For me, my involvement in media has not done me great harm, and I actually benefit from it. I can keep conversations with people about certain subjects. I can use my knowledge from the media to help me in my everyday life. It's even made me a more humorous person in some ways. There is so much to say about the ups and downs and goods and bads of media that I can't even contain it in one short post. But the one thing I can't do is escape it, which maybe isn't so bad after all, depending on how I use it.

By the way, if you hadn't already thought of it, this blog post is a form of media... you just got hoodwinked!!