I decided to kick off the blog project with a post of my own so that you can practice commenting. I chose a New York Times Opinion/Editorial article by Jonathan Franzen from May 2011. I chose this because it relates to our conversation from class on Wednesday about how simply "liking" something on facebook is a snap judgment, which closes down analysis and conversation. Use the link below to read the article and then practice posting a short (5-10 sentences) comment. As you read, (hopefully) enjoy, and comment away, remember that our goal is to avoid judgments as well; so the goal is not to discuss whether we like, dislike, agree, or disagree with Franzen's point, but rather to observe how he makes his point and what effect it has on the audience.
Here are a couple of questions to guide you as you comment:
1) What sorts of metaphors or comparisons does Franzen set up to make his point? Are they effective?
2) How does Franzen provide evidence for his claims (data, citing other writers, observation, personal experience?). Is his use of evidence convincing?
3) Describe the tone of the article. Does the piece seem to be more analytical or more argumentative? Why?
Franzen makes his points through describing situations that people can truly relate to, and he does it very stylistically. His writing style is just real, flat-out, ‘let’s get down to business’ writing. When he talked about relationships and how being ‘perfectly likable’ does not work out when it comes to them, it really stuck out to me. Everyone who has been in a relationship can totally relate to that paragraph (2nd page, 5th paragraph); sooner or later the REAL you is going to come out, so why would you waste precious time just hiding your true self or trying to simply be ‘likable’? I’m willing to bet that everyone did a little playback in their mind to a relationship they were once in, or maybe are still in, and thought about when they were finally over that awkward beginning stage and could actually let themselves be who they are around their significant other; I know I did. The whole situation with Franzen’s love of birds was a cool way of interpreting his own personal experience into the article as well. Sharing his strange but touching love/obsession for birds just added to Franzen’s reliability in a way. He wasn’t saying he was a bird enthusiast to simply be ‘perfectly likable’, if you catch my drift. Just sayin’, I really liked this article.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughtful comment, Melody - and way to be the first person!
ReplyDeleteFranzen's personal observations pulled me in because his tone was extremely honest with no sentences just thrown in because it's what we as an audience are looking to hear, while at the same time providing examples that one can relate to. His piece was an enjoyable read because he wasn’t shoving his opinion down my throat, but found a way to explain his thoughts without being offensive, because I didn’t really read anything in the piece that made me feel like he was trying to prove a point. I think the paper was more analytical and describing the difference between real love and acting a certain way to be loved by everyone than argumentative. Being liked isn't a problem, but it shouldn't be what you strive for in life, which he makes very clear, and to not hide your love just because of a fear of rejection or not being cool.
ReplyDelete- Alli
I think it is very interesting how Franzen compares the connection between the user and their phone to the relationship of two people. Once he elaborates on that metaphor, it’s shocking how accurate the comparison really is. Franzen also brings up a good point on how quickly technology changes nowadays. If one were to buy the newest smartphone on the market today, it would be an old and outdated model by the time the user got fully accustomed to it. The way Franzen speaks about someone who constantly worried about being “liked” was a very convincing method of showing the audience what can happen when liking and disliking consumes your mind. He makes it clear that one should not spend their time obsessing over whether people like certain aspects of them, but should focus on the bigger picture of love and having passion for something. The subjects Franzen discusses when discussing love are very matter of fact and mind opening. It reveals to the reader that you have to learn to deal with the things in your life that aren’t necessarily likable. You have to deal with your own self before you can ever expect someone else to love you or if you ever want to love someone.
ReplyDeleteI also found Franzen's comparison between technology and a idealistic relationship. His analogy sparked a memory of a discussion I had with my significant other. I had offered the idea that he should try dating his new cell phone, during the first week of his purchasing it. I believe that I am not the only person to ever feel overshadowed by a piece of technology, so I feel more than comfortable stating that Franzen "hit home". I will, without a doubt, be sharing this article with friends and family. Thank you for sharing! He has an intriguing point of view with many valid points. The article has a graceful tone and is not argumentative, in my eyes. That allows it to have a wider audience, therefore being more successful.
ReplyDeleteFranzen certainly makes several very good points with this article. One thing that kind of threw me for a loop, was some of the imagery he used to start the article. I feel like he could have made the same points he was trying to make without all the uncomfortable, and just flat out weird images. I did find his comment about manipulating others particularly interesting as I have observed this in many others, and it is really annoying. Superficiality is extremely irksome to me, and when others try to make themselves likable, it literally drives me up a wall. All in all, I found this a very insightful and interesting article. I do, however, find the author to be weird. I feel like he is trying to use too many metaphors and images when they are not really needed. He makes many valid points, and all the crazy love life comparisons were just not really needed in my eyes.
ReplyDelete-Collin Wear
Frazen did a good job detailing his points and backing them up with real world examples. However his discussion is one sided. He states all the negative side of liking things, but never any positives. Not all "liking, in general, is commercial culture’s substitute for loving." It is possible to like something without it being a substitute for love. People like watching movies because it is entertaining. Frazen should have shown both sides of the argument, instead of focusing only on the negative aspects of liking.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of sparking some debate/discussion, I will respond to a few of the comments rather than making an independent comment of my own:
ReplyDeleteMelody: You raise an interesting point in highlighting Jonathan Franzen's idea that attempting to be "perfectly likeable" is a recipe for disaster. I tend to agree, but I don't think it's as black and white as Franzen makes it out to be. Wishing for approval from your peers and family is not a flaw - it's human nature. When this approval comes at the expense of your own happiness, sure, that's a problem. But I would argue that there are certain situations in which "being yourself" isn't ideal.
Frank: You make the point that “only the most important things are worth loving”. This sentiment seems to highlight a distinction between “liking” something and “loving” something. Franzen makes the same distinction in stating that that “there is no such thing as a person whose real self you like every particle of. This is why a world of liking is ultimately a lie. But there is such a thing as a person whose real self you love every particle of.” T Frankly, this is a philosophy I’m not sure I agree with. What is it that differentiates loving something room liking something? In many ways, it’s no more than a matter of degree. What is love if not a mere culmination of various “likes”? When I “love” something, I love it because I “like” it for many different reasons. I don’t find that the difference between a “like” and a “love” is as profound as Franzen would like us to believe. Just my two cents…
In reading all of your comments, I noticed that just about everyone found this article to be analytical as opposed to argumentative. I found just the opposite. The title - "Liking is for Cowards" - implies a fairly strong opinion. Good writers can make an argument without being condescending, and I think Franzen does just that. He very clearly states his dissatisfaction with how we interact with technology, and in doing so, forces the reader to examine their own interactions with technology and the impact these interactions in our personal lives.
-Zach
I had mixed feelings about the whole article. I didn't like the beginning. I felt he was trying too hard with his metaphors, although they were very effective in making his point. I also didn't like how he started three paragraphs off with "Let me." I feel like there could be other ways to start those rather than reusing "Let me." Once I made it to the second page the article definitely got better and I enjoyed the rest of it. On a less personal feeling side, Franzen used his love for birds as a personal experience to provide evidence for his claims. Franzen's article was definitely more argumentative. Like Michael said, his discussion is one sided. He doesn't talk about points of conflict in his piece or anything of that such. However, all and all, I feel the article as a whole was a worth while thing to read.
ReplyDelete-Olivia Hershey
Thanks for the interesting comments you all! I'm glad you're finding points to agree with, critique, and responding to each other's comments too!
ReplyDeleteI am really sad to say that I am unable to open the article for some reason the link isn't working on my phone or my work PC so sorry guys!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI was actually surprised with Franzen's first point. A Blackberry Bold? The trackpad is very hard to get used to, and I'd much rather have the Tour. It is very easy to see why he got sick of the Pearl - 2 letters are assigned to each key - what a pain!
ReplyDeleteFranzen's use of personal experiences provides concrete evidence to the point he is trying to make, that loving is better than liking, and being loved is more important than being liked. The example of losing love for his phone is a great example, as it is something we have all experienced and can relate to. We know exactly what he is talking about. When he talks about the fear of rejection, he is right. We are afraid to be rejected. But why shouldn't we be? Should we embrace rejection? This is the only part of the article that I disagree with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this article. I feel this article seems to be more analytical because I don't feel that Franzen is trying to convince me of anything. I like how he uses his own personal experiences to express his thoughts and observations. From reading his personal experiences, I can also relate to what he's saying and that makes this article a lot more interesting. As a side note, I really like this: "Whereas, to love a specific person, and to identify with his or her struggles and joys as if they were your own, you have to surrender some of your self." I think here he makes a very interesting point and I find myself to agree with him completely.
ReplyDeleteFranzen's writing style is very honest and much relates to the realistic life. In this article, Franzen uses some evidences to illustrate the theme that liking becomes superficial without a real feeling, and people prefer to liking things instead of recognizing what hurts them. First he presents his own experience about the blueberry phones. This real experience shows readers his true feeling and opinion on this sensitive question. Then he indicates that the technology's changing trend is following human's wishes and depends on their's favors. Also, he talks about the "like" function in the facebook. It's totally a commercial product and makes people simply like something; however, this kind of like can't be a permanent like. Franzen provides evidences includes many areas and gives detailed explanations.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was very interesting. I agreed with Michael when he said that it was one-sided. However, I did think Franzen had a valid point. I think that telling his own experiences and passions, embarrassing or not, made me like him more. He was being truthful. When he talked about how everyone tries to change themselves in order to get 'likes', I could see where he was coming from. I thought the article was more argumentative but he still presented his views in a subtle way.
ReplyDeleteOverall the article was pretty detailed and interesting. I have never read anything like this before, So i found his contrast between "the narcissistic tendencies of technology and the problem of actual love", to be very strange but truthful and real.I can honestly say this wouldn't have been my first choice of fun reading but because Franzen was very passionate about his topic, it made me want to read it. The part that stood out the most to me was in the middle. Where Franzen states "There is no such thing as a person whose real self you like every particle of. This is why a world of liking is ultimately a lie"... This statement really got me thinking. This piece had some an argumentative comments, but was more analytical, if that makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Franzen's speech was vibrant and emotional, leading me to believe he was working towards persuasion, and therefore, he was utilizing a more argumentative tone. His words and stories were subjective and personal and tended to be quite judgmental, also leaning towards and argumentative point. He used anecdotal evidence, which can be very persuasive, especially given his credentials. I particularly liked his comparison of a technological relationship to humans to that of a human to human relationship. His tone is personable and relatable, a characteristic I personally enjoy.
ReplyDeleteIf it possible for his writing to be neither analytical nor accusatory, I feel that it is in some way accusatory. Which I suppose is considered an argument altough his style feels like a new branch. He makes you, as the reader, feel guilty for indulging in a materialistic lifestyle.He mentions that physical representations of affection as "nauseating" and diamonds as "grotesque". He moves on to mention that he feels that "liking" something is a cheap way of not loving it, and labels someone who desires to be liked as "narcissistic". He moves on with a couple more accusations and judgements, but rounds all of these out with the extremely valid point that we have substituted actually feeling something, actually loving something, with generic artificial feelings spawned from consumerism. I appreciate that point though, because you can't help but agree. Overall, the whole piece was captivating and a unique interpretation on snap judgements.
ReplyDelete