Course Material Response (9/29)

One of the first things we talked about this year was DIDLS (Diction, Imagery, Detail, Language, and Syntax).

It was the syntax explanation that gave me the greatest insight into my own writing. I have this tendency to use the passive tense in my writing, which I now realize is less useful and more indirect. I think I use it because I took Latin, and there was more passive voice in the things we translated than in the everyday English language. The constant use of the passive seeped into my writing, usually for academic papers. I also find myself using conjunctions to link sentences, but I know that is a good way to connect ideas and create flow now, so I am glad to be in the habit. Many of the devises used to create suspense are not used in my writing, which makes sense because I do not write suspenseful works, still, I would like to try using verbal and asyndeton in my creative writing, so I can get used to using them.

When discussing diction, I realized that I label any language that I do not consider colloquial or informal as elevated, when elevated language is a few steps above conversational language. Just because a word is not usually used in everyday conversation does not necessarily mean that the word is elevated. In The Jungle excerpt we were given, the word “clad” is used. This word is not typically used in everyday language, but it is most definitely not elevated. Before I might have immediately labeled it as elevated, just because it is not conversational. I also think diction is an interesting element in movies and plays, where there is generally only dialogue. Every word must also work to convey the thoughts and emotions of the characters, because it cannot be described through the narration or tone of the speaker. Writing dialogue seems more difficult to me now.

With imagery, language, and detail, I pay attention to things that stand out more. When I am first reading something, like The American Dream, I notice things that immediately stand out. I am constantly asking why the author would include things that seem unimportant, especially when considering detail. I re-read the first Harry Potter recently and I started to notice that she always puts a number to things, when she really does not need to. For instance she uses specific numbers like “Number 4 Privet Drive” or “vault 173”. These are not needed, but their addition makes me think they mean more.

I like to describe existentialism as “with great freedom comes great responsibility.” I think the concept of finding your own meaning in life is truly represented in many books and movies, but I feel like the meaninglessness of life depicted is less common. A French movie called Love Me If You Dare displays its two main characters as free with no sense of responsibility for their actions or the consequences of their decisions. The two characters only want to one up each other; they do not care about getting anywhere in life. Their complete disregard for any meaning in life seems to be the exact opposite of the existentialist views. In the end they sacrifice their lives for each other and for their love, but this is the only view they convey. They are displayed as irresponsible characters that do not display all of society, but overall the movie shows a complete lack of the existential views. I do like the existentialism’s idea of responsibility and life determined by individual actions. I think it is an interesting concept that is not well displayed in pop culture.

The theater of the Absurd reminds me of Rocky Horror Picture Show. The complete craziness of the mansion mixed with the “everyman” characters Brad and Janet displays the meaninglessness of everything. The surreal actions of Frank-N-Furter and the people staying at his house display a barbaric nature. The movie’s main center of entertainment is the humor which distracts the viewer from how ridiculous the plot of the movie is. The ending portrays humans as ants and makes the world seem that much more meaningless. Janet and Brad presumably go back to their lives and do not worry about what happened at the castle. The movie ends in full circle with everything back to normal (kind of) and the lips form the beginning singing again.

The theories of humor offered an interesting look into movie and television comedies for me. Many comedies implore the use of more than one of the set types and theories. The Big Bang Theory for instance relies on High comedy for its use of science and witty remarks, but the show displays mostly low comedy with tricks and boasting. It also displays farce with characters that are highly exaggerated parts of the population. There are very few people that know incredible amounts of science and are that socially inept. I think that the theories of comedy are all important aspects of humor. For instance, Scary Movie would fall partly under the ambivalence theory with their goriness and partly under the incongruity theory because the viewer feels some superiority over the ridiculous characters. Books, movies, and television shows can fall under more than one theory or type and they often do. This helps appeal to more than one audience. Not everyone is going to laugh at things that are gross, so putting some more intelligent humor can appeal to a new group. This is also used in children’s shows. A show can be interesting to children, but also has humor that may be more intelligent or inappropriate so adults can also laugh.