Love Hurts

All the time people are going to be jealous of the other person because they are always a threat towards the other person. When Stephanie did the test with people I could already tell that the results were going to be negative towards the person of the same sex. No matter who you love you would rather hurt the other person before you let the one that you loved get hurt. So when the test was done where people were shown other potential people that could take the person they loved away they made sure to physically hurt the other person or rate them so horribly to where nobody would want to be with the other person. So when I myself knew that this dark side was already there because everyone who cannot one hundred percent trust their partner will act like this because in their minds they believe that the person that they love could want this other person even more then they would want you. This type of thing will happen not only in love just anything that they care about that could make them become the second best and not be at the top of the list like they were before. So when you say that no I am not like that you have to be lying because it is just a protective nature that we all have we want to be loved by one person and nobody else, or it could be like we want the best for our child so we would rather get hurt before we let our kids get hurt so we make sure to take care of them.

Life

In both pieces we were told to read, the common denominator for both was happiness, or the requirements to a fulfilled and long lived life. The first was The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians, written by Rita Dove, which references the bible and Paul the Apostle's story on how the course of your long life can drastically effect our expectations or values in life. She goes on and reminisces on her childhood at the African Methodist Episcopal Church and how when she was trying to comprehend Paul the Apostle's story; Paul entered the world of Christianity solely due to his love for Christ and this decision alters his life for the better for the rest of his life. Rita Dove eventually concludes by saying that love and pursuing love is the key to happiness. This is, however, in contrast to Joshua Wolf Shenk's article over George Vaillant's ideas and studies on what is necessary for happiness. Shenk's article covers an extensive psychoanalytical examination, one of the longest and most in depth of its kind, managed by its longtime director George Vaillant this study started in the late 1930's with 268 collegiate men and kept with the majority of them for 72 years. They examined everything from physical aspects of their appearance and health, to psychological questions and preferences on day to day life. As time went on they all parted ways and added more and more variables to their own personal happiness, however no matter how different their lives may be there still were key concepts or aspects that were evident in each happy individual; key contributors to happiness seemed to be one's ability to control and use our "adaptations" (otherwise known as defense mechanisms) in response to pain, conflict or uncertainty. I immediately was infatuated by this concept and found it to be useful and interesting even in my own life. Everyone adapts to situations naturally, just as our body will adapt to a cut and create a blood clot, but whether you adapt "psychotically", which was deemed the most unhealthy dealing with paranoia and hallucinations,  adapt "immaturely", which is found more commonly at young ages rather than adults like acting out or passive aggression, or if you adapt "neurotically", the healthiest of the three dealing with anticipation or humor, can all have a great deal to do with your happiness through out life. Our ability to adapt inherently changes over time, a child is more likely to lash out in anger than a grandmother, which can actually correlate to our own stereotype of how old people are the most wise.  Maybe happiness is attained only through time, through our ability to control our bodies natural reactions, I will write my own article in fifty years and tell you the secret.

Happiness?

After analyzing The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians by Rita Dove and the article What Makes Us Happy? By Joshua Wolf Shenk, I have concluded that they both have a very similar perspective on life and happiness. Rita Dove uses the bible reference of Paul the Apostle and his many experiences to show why the crazy course of life can alter our expectations and values of life. Shenk demonstrates how life and the values of 268 men through 72 years can differ, but also seem to correlate. When you live life, how should you live it? I believe that is the overall topic both authors are trying to touch on. Happiness comes in many different forms. The happiness most individuals value the most is the sense of accomplishment. When a person succeeds at something he or she tends to want everyone to congratulate them or at the very least acknowledge the fact that that person made the accomplishment. Another type of happiness is the feeling of being at peace with anyone and anything. Conflict is the one thing every person tries to avoid, but they inevitably fail to do so. When there is no conflict, there is happiness. When there is Conflict, there is no happiness to be found. Both of the types of happiness listed go hand in hand because of when conflict arises and then there is a solution to it, there is that sense of accomplishment when the problem is solved. Both Rita Dove and Joshuas Wolf Shenk emphasize about another type of method to discover happiness, Grace. When one has grace in there life they appreciate the little things in life such as, dirty laundry. Shenk posted a video Dr. George Vaillant which talked about how dirty laundry represents the product of happiness of children, and grandchildren of a man that was studied. Even though most would consider laundry a chore, and with out a doubt it is, he believed the laundry was happiness at that moment. By just living life, you miss out on the wondrous and immaculate things that is life. It takes most individuals at least half of their life to understand how to find, and where to find, happiness. Rita Dove even stated that a group of young adolescents weren't suppose to understand what true guilt is. Guilt is a representation of missed opportunities of understand how to find happiness. Both Rita Dove and Joshua Wolf Shenk believe that life can be long and some what treacherous, but you have to be aware of what is going on around you and take the time to appreciate all the opportunities to have a better grasp of the abstract concept of happiness . 

Happiness

The article "What makes Us Happy?" by Joshua Wolf Shenk is reporting the findings of psychiatrist George Vaillant, who conducted a experiment following the lives of 268 students from Harvard university and how their lives change throughout the years. Based on Dr. Vaillant's studies the cases that began with the student having a better background when they were younger appeared to have the better future ahead of them. However, that wasn't the case as their chances of living happier lives as elderly men began to deteriorate because of environmental factors such as, war, psychological issues, work, and family issues affected the students psychologically. Compared to the students that don't have healthy backgrounds and experienced the "rough times" at the beginning of their lives tend to go from appearing to have the worst possible future to having the better future than the students that were believed to have the better future. Shenk expresses that we as humans want to be as happy as possible so we mask our true feelings for something in order to keep us from getting hurt. In the article "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians" by Rita Dove takes a religious view point on how to be happy. She discusses her personal experience from learning from the apostle Paul. Paul's experiences and how he learned from those experiences is how his life shaped. Both articles have different views of how to reach happiness, Shenk states that what makes us happy is our experiences through life and how we choose to perceive them and Dove states that we can achieve happiness through love. I would have to agree with both of these articles because there is nothing more related to happiness than love but as well as how we decide to see our experiences is important because bad things do happen but if we choose to accept the bad and stay optimistic then we can stay happy. In my opinion happiness is a difficult concept to grasp because there are so many factors that come into play, but theres really no way I can say it than just if you're happy, then you're happy.

Happiness

What does happiness mean? According to the dictionary, happiness is to be delighted, pleased, or glad as over a particular thing. It is characterized by or indicative of contentment or joy. But what exactly is happiness? The meaning of happiness for one person will never be the same for another because everyone has a different perspective about things. For me, happiness is when I feel good about something I did or achieved like a set goal. It is when I am able to see the pride and respect that my parents have for me because of my achievements. It is when I am able to see my parents hold their heads up high in the society with pride and not having any fear of anything wrong happening. In both of the readings the authors try to describe the concept of happiness. In The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians, Rita Dove goes back to her childhood days as a student at the African Methodist Episcopal Church where the minister asks “what do you know of mortal sin?” The girls are unsure about it leading to the nervousness of the minister. Dove then remembers a sermon about the apostle Paul and her attempt at trying to understand it. Towards the end she realizes that Paul entered Christianity only because of his love for Christ which came from a series of unexpected events. He was remade because of his love for Christ making his life start anew. I feel that Dove is trying to state that through love, happiness is attained. Similarly, Joshua Wolf Shenk is describing the concept of happiness in his article, What Makes Us Happy? In this article, George Valliant's findings are reported based on 248 Harvard University students and how their lives change throughout the years. At the beginning, there are students with luxurious and perfect lives as well as students that have come from the "not so perfect" background. Towards the end, it seemed as if the lives had reversed for the two different sets of students. The perfect lives had been destroyed due to the environmental factors in their lives while the imperfect ones now had attained stable and perfect lives. I believe that happiness can be gained from many factors in one's lives. The way you live your life with the environmental factors surrounding you can lead to either happiness or unhappiness.

Happiness

What makes us happy by Joshua Wolf Shenk is an amazing article of how explored an old Harvard study. This study followed 268 men with a goal of learning what happiness means. The author explains how these men are affected by their childhood. He explains that it is some form of defense mechanism. In one case there was a boy who ate every meal alone for the first six years of his life and was greatly affected by it. He had social anxiety and was very shy. Joshua explains how relationships, joy and health play a major part in happiness. In The Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Ephesians, the author explains how she was raised with religion and the story of Paul. She explains how Saul was visited by an angel and turns into Paul but she can’t get over the fact of how there is nothing left when Saul turns into Paul. She then realizes that to love and be happy you must learn to forgive yourself. In my opinion this story has very little to do with happiness. I agree with Joshua about how happiness is a combination of joy, health pain and our past. Our past has everything to do with our future happiness as Joshua says everything is a defense mechanism. Through our past we learn to adapt and react to future events. For example if you are neglected as a child, you will most likely look for attention as an adult. Joshua also explained how drinking and smoking affect and sometimes ruins lives. There are so many things that can dictate happiness, whether it be a stable job family or being healthy. In my opinion happiness is whatever you make out of it. Everyone is different and everyone find joy out of different things. So happiness cannot be formulated or engineered. It is a combination of our surrounding (which include a job, relationships, joy) and our past. This combination of things makes it impossible to discover happiness because everyone finds joy and happiness in vastly different places. Happiness is what you make out of your life and only you can dictate it.

Happiness

What is happiness? To me its chocolate cake after a good meal or spending time with my family also sports have always made me happy. In “What Makes Us Happy” Joshua states that things that lead to more happiness is healthy mature way of living where you, work out occasionally and eat healthier, and you got to work for happiness. Which I can see when people eat healthy food they feel good so it ends up making them happy along with working out for your own self image.  I know that when I eat healthier I feel good and I do feel happy but that is short term. I know how to be happy in short term sense such as I go play volleyball with friends and I am happy at that moment. But not in the long term people have to work for there idea of happiness and those who really have to work for seem to be happier. When I was working to achieve a higher spot on the tennis team at my high school I had to work to become better so that I could raise up in the ranks. That strive made me really happy, because I ended up making it into the top six but I also knew I had more to work on if I wanted to get to the top which thrilled me. In Joshua’s article he experimented on men to better understand them completely. So what I have gotten out of these articles is that to find happiness you have to work for it, eating right and working out occasionally. Which makes sense, if I don’t move and do something it can cause people to feel depressed. That is why it is a good idea to do something for an hour.

Love is Happiness

Happiness, like all emotions is an extremely complex idea; it can mean different things to different people. In Joshua Wolf Shenk`s article “What Makes Us Happy?”  Shenk poses the question “is there a formula for happiness?” Shenk attempts to answer this question as he observed two hundred and sixty-eight men from Harvard University over the course of seventy-two years, and during that time period he comes to the conclusion that happiness isn’t exactly linear. There are many factors that contribute to our levels of happiness, our experiences being one of them. When Shenk`s discusses case No.141 he tells us about how the patient was curing his college years; happy, successful, and in possession of all of the qualities of a “superior personality”. However, after his parents got a divorce his life went progressively down-hill; he began smoking, drinking, began dating a woman who was considered psychotic. Case No.141, was a perfectly happy person until an unhappy event took place in his life, then he completely changed. The happiness in your life absolutely has a direct correlation with the experience that take place. Shenk also say that everything we do is a defense mechanism to keep ourselves from getting hurt, to keep ourselves as happy as possible. Though defenses are important relationships also play a powerful role in our state of happiness. The love we get from the relationships we forge gives us a sense of warmth and love.  In “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians” by Rita Dove, she kind of builds on that specific argument of Shenk`s as she dives deeper into the history and life of the apostle Paul. Dove says that Paul`s life was shaped by his experiences and emotions. More specifically his love for Christ; his relationship with Christ provides him happiness on his road to redemption. Dove adds to Shenk`s argument that love is the equivalent happiness. Just like Shenk, Dove doesn’t outright state her opinion on happiness but she does clearly sway her argument toward “love is happiness”.  I agree with what both of the authors say about happiness; it is very much dependent upon your experiences and relationships. Anyone can be happy for a long period of time but it takes positive events in your life continuously happening to stay that way. The relationships in our lives also provide a sense of security which in turn allows us to build a sense of consistent happiness. My opinion on happiness that it is a complex emotion, but that if there is a chance at having it we should take it Experiences shape our lives and perception of happiness, and we do have defense mechanisms that we employ to protect ourselves and preserve our happiness.

Happiness is love

In "What Makes Us Happy?" by Joshua Wolf Shenk, he talks about George Valliants study of 268 Harvard male students he'd been able to interview throughout their lives. For the most part, it seems as if the men who had the more promising lives ended up being the ones who faultered as they grew older. Men like Eugene O'neal were thought to end up being executed by the electrical chair, but ended up winning the nobel prize. Their lives ended up doing a complete 180. Valliant makes the claim that "Happiness isn't about me." This simply means that one should try to bring joy to others, and in turn they'll be gifted with something special along the way. It's not something that should be forced, it should come naturally. This ties in with his other statement that "Happiness is love." Love is something that develops over time. I see it as a stepping stone and an equal to happiness. Happiness is a product of love, so in that sense it is love. He even continues on to call happiness a process. This tells me that being truly happy doesn't occur over night. It's something you have to mildly work at. Everyones happiness isn't going to be rated on the same scale, and it may not always be constant. That's life.
Rita Dove appears to grasp this same method as she takes us on a journey through her days as a bible school student in the African Methodist Epicostal church. She's trying to get a better understanding of the apostle Paul. It seems as if she comes to the conclusion that he's human, and he was taken aback by unexpected events in his life. He developed a love for Christ and ended up using it as his road to redemption. She builds on Valliant's arguement that "Happiness is love" by alluding to Paul finding his happiness with the help of the love he has for Christ. He does so by turning his life around and starting anew. She doesn't necessarily plain and dry describe what happiness is but she does a solid job towards the end of portraying how love can make one strive to do better.

Proof! Human Language Gene Helps Mice Learn Tasks

This article relates to the Words That Change the World podcast y'all listened to.

"This really is an important brick in the wall saying that the form of the gene that allowed us to speak may have something to do with a special kind of learning, which takes us from having to make conscious associations in order to act to a nearly automatic-pilot way of acting based on the cues around us," says MIT's Ann Graybiel, one of the professors conducting the research.

 

Commenter 9/15

Although I understand it, I don’t agree with Rebecca Mead’s Anger towards Ira Glass’s tweet saying that Shakespeare is not relatable.  Mead makes a valuable point in saying that the works were not written to fit our new age meaning of the word relatable, but that doesn’t excuse her bitter resentment of another viewers feelings towards the play as a whole, Mead very childishly infers Glass is exposing his most stupid self by saying “Shakespeare Sucks”. As a person who has been involved in theatre their whole life I understand Mead’s frustration, the Arts are not made to be relatable to everyone during every period of life and Glass’s comment was blunt, but the truth is that it is his opinion and getting upset about it isn’t going to change it. Of course Shakespeare’s works aren’t relatable to us, they were written over 400 years ago! I think Mead needs to take a step back and realize that the real issue isn’t “relatable”, but rather her need to prove that the Arts have nothing to prove. She goes on and on about how relatable is a disgrace and how we should stop trying to find ourselves in everything, but the truth of the matter is that as a society we have conditioned ourselves into finding ourselves in characters or another form of art to re-enforce to ourselves that the things we feel/believe are socially accepted. Instead of criticizing the opinion of someone Mead should look at the bigger picture and see that it’s a bigger social issue regarding our self acceptance rather than someone not enjoying Shakespeare’s works. 

Relatibility Comment

I disagree with Mead, I don't think the meaning has changed. I think that it has been altered like many words have to make it more versatile and easier to use. I think that it still means that something connects to another thing, but in this "new" definition the thing it connects to is our experiences. So, no I don't believe the definition has been changed all that much if at all.

However, I do like how Mead said that not finding relatability in a work is a shortcoming of our own. Simply because she is so right, If we cannot while watching a movie or reading a book cannot connect it to something related to our lives, it is our own fault.

"Relatability"

I don't think "relatable" is a problematic word as the author sees it. I think that because most people in the world, today, use the word as relating to something. Relating means to have some type of connection. So I think most people use it in that tense, whether it be referred as family, when you communicate or even when you narrate something. Rebecca Mead also mentioned that, "The contemporary meaning of "relatable"--to describe a character or a situation in which an ordinary person might see himself refelected.."  I agree and to me that means that some people look at themselves and see them as someone else. Others might consider "relatable" being a problemtatic word. That's because of the way they refer it to art, as Ira Glass does. Saying how some sometimes argue that, it's to take the easy way out and don't want to get out of their circle of expierence. And then you have some that do try to get out of that circle but finding that's everything, but easy. But describing things as relatable, and identifying a feeling of sharing features with a situation represented in art, is not wrong or self-involved. And, she writes, “To reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize — because it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy — is our own failure.” I think that means just beacuse something doesn'y fit us just right or does not make us feel comfortable, and we choose to use that as an excuse, makes us not succeed on our own. So I agree with that as well, so I say that I think "relatable" can both, be a problematic word and not a prbolematic word.

Commenting on Relatability

In “The Scourge of Relatability” by Rebecca Mead, the validity of the word “relatability” is argued, brought up by radio talk show host, Ira Glass, when he criticizes Shakespeare’s work because it was not “relatable”. After reading this post, I realized that Mead was trying to say that the meaning of the word relatable has changed from back when it used to mean something was able to be told, to now when it means “that it could be connected to some other thing”. I, personally, think that the meaning of the word has not changed, much rather, the way that it’s being used has changed. The word is used as a way to link yourself with another object in some way, but Mead mentions that using it in that way would just be a form for the reader or audience to flatter themselves in the same way that a the perfect “selfie” would. For example, when I’m watching a movie and the main character feels a certain way that I have felt before, I say that I can “relate” to the character, and that moment was “relatable” for me, but I do not do it as a confirmation that I am solipsistic.

Commentor/ Forceful Assimilation

I agree with Anzaldúa’s claim that denying a group their language is a violation of the first amendment. No matter what language is spoken respect should still be given towards the individual. Most people might feel uncomfortable around people that speak a different language around them because they feel a huge barrier between them and the other person. I was alarmed when Anzaldúa’s Anglo teacher said “If you want to be American, speak ‘American.’ If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong.” My first reaction when reading this was that her teacher was being inconsiderate. I’ve witnessed situations like this first hand and I've felt super sympathetic towards the victims in cases like Anzaldúa’s.

 I also agree with Anzaldúa’s claim that denying a group their language is an act of violence. Violence is defined by strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force. Denying a group their language is damaging to their emotions and ability to feel at ease. Without freely being able to speak your home language in the privacy of your school or around friends is detrimental to maintaining your roots. Anzaldúa had many problems with this throughout this passage because she was brought up thinking that her language was wrong and that in order to fit in she needed to act as an “American”. As a result of her childhood she became prideful of being Chicano and believes that her race is “preserving, impenetrable as stone, yet possessing a malleability that renders us unbreakable.”

Relatable

The word and the meaning of relatable is all dependent on how we view and use it. Ira Glass uses the word relatable in a negative way. He refers to relatable as something being related to his experiences, self or life. Many people people these days use relatable in a negative way like Ira does, but thats just their point of view. Those that view relatable in that way tend to not enjoy books and movies that aren't related to them.

Relatable is not necessarily a problamatic word, unless you make it that way. When reading books you should have an open mind about the story that the book is telling even if it doesn't relate to you. Relatable can be a problematic word but it shouldn't be. But from my point of view the word relatable isn't problematic because its all about how i look at a book or movie. I am one of the few people that can walk out of a movie and no matter what is was about, even if it in no way related to me i will still enjoy it.

People that have to have a movie or a book relate to them to enjoy it aren't necessarily in the wrong but are being closed minded about the books meaning. I don't see how this should be a problem for anybody, if you don't like something then that is your own opinion, no one else's, so its not problematic.

The word "Relatable" was deeply analyzed, in this particular article, by the author Rebecca Mead. She showed the words evolution in time,
but her motive was to show, or prove, a particular individual of his wrong doing. This particular individual made a post on twitter claiming "Shakespeare sucks" also claiming "No stakes, Not relatable." This statement given must have sparked a fire in this Rebecca Mead because she wrote a following article declaring her opinion of the situation. She had many words to say about one word in the quote, "relatable." She seems to think this word is a enormous problem, while describing Shakespeare. In my opinion the word is not the problem, the man who posted the tweet is. She used the word in many different variations showing it used in magazines, talk shows and how it became very popular at one point. Although the word was poorly used in a certain individuals opinion does not mean the word is such a big problem. Her tone throughout the article was in-objective, which made the article more biased. She boldly stated her point of view of the word but never directly toward the publisher of the tweet. She feels very strongly about the subject by making the article personal also. The author states ".. it does not exempt is from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy- is our own failure." This powerful explanation is an example of the author showing biased aggression in the article toward "the word" "relatable."

Commentor/ The Scourge of "Relatibility"

The main reason I disagree with Ms. Rebecca Mead is because of her negative attitude. I completely understand her stance on why she believes the word "relatability" is , in simplest terms, a disgrace. However, she makes it seem as if using the word, in reference to media or literature is something done by those who are downright stupid. She makes references to some modern "hip" terms such as Twitter and the selfie. In referring to them she mentions Twitter as an outlet for ones "most supid self", and to the selfie as "...a flattering confirmation of an individual’s solipsism". Her semi degrading terms somewhat reveal her didsdain for the new advances in self expression of oneself. Or at least thats what I gathered. All of her references to why "relatibility" is a useless term seem to be overexaggerated, in my opinion.She makes it seem as if wanting to see oneself in a particular work is a bad thing. I agree that it isn't an absolute necessity, but sometimes people grasp a better understanding of certain concepts in media or literature when they can relate to them on some level. I do believe if overused the word "relatability" can be made into a handicap, but I don't think it's an absolute sin to use it.

Relatability

"Relatability" is the similarity between two like things and in the article, by Rebecca Mead,

"The Scourge of “Relatability”, she describes relatable in different aspects and concepts such as when she presents the contemporary norm of the meaning. Mead states that the meaning could be how people can relate to the idea of something upon which everybody agrees. When someone says, "that's normal" they are stating they can relate to whatever may have required that response which does not necessarily mean they have had the same situation or have felt the same way but that they may have empathy on the subject.

Blog Sep. 15

In "How to Tame a Wild Tongue", by Anzaldua, she claims that denying a group their language is a violation of the first amendment. I agree with her because as a Mexican-American I am bilingual and speak both English and Spanish. If people deny me of speaking Spanish it violates my right of freedom of speech, which is the first amendment. Freedom of speech means you have the right to speak of what ever or talk about what ever. My parents speak Spanish only and if  I got denied the right to speak Spanish and only speak English I would probably not be able to communicate with them. Many people come here to the United State for the right to speak and if that was denied to them they would just have to leave and find somewhere where there language can expand. I think knowing different languages helps you communicate well with others and learn other peoples culture.

Relatability  is the quality or state of being relatable. Which means it has relationship between two things. So I don't think relatabilty is not a problematic word as the author of "The Scourge of Relatability", Rebecca Mead, says it is. All it means is comparing two things and finding similarities and differences.

"How to Tame a Wild Tongue" I think is more effective at providing its argument of language because she uses many evidence and examples of how people get denied their right to speak their language.

      Unlike what  Rebecca Mead will tell you "Relatable" is not  problematic. Sure it doesn't have the same meaning as it did during Shakespeare's  time, but it is just another of many words that have their meaning change. She explains how the word was "connected to some other thing" in Shakespeare's time. In modern times we use the term as to see our self in that certain situation. Sure it no longer has the meaning that she might like for the word but words change everyday, such as "slash". Pieces from Shakespeare and modern authors are both relatable when looked at close enough. To ask for something to be made relatable is also not problematic due to the fact that anybody can find something in common and piece if they try. So I disagree when she says that relatable is problematic and is a scourge. Relatablity is what makes novels or plays interesting and hold the attention of the audience. There also isn't anything wrong with trying to see yourself in a certain situation it could help understand the writing better if you do.

The Power of "Relatability"

This day in age, the idea of a work being relatable is what makes said work easier for it's audience to understand. Having the ability to relate to the audience and truly helping viewers to understand how the characters feel is what makes a work ultimately a success. In Rebecca Mead's article,
The Scourge of “Relatability”, she argues the problematic nature of the word "relatable." Although I agree that relatability is indeed problematic, I believe this for different reasons. In my mind, the ability to be relatable is of the upmost importance. Perhaps in Shakespearian time this was not the motive or the drive for entertainment, but in the year 2014 a piece is truly amazing if the audience is left completely haunted by the effects of a work due to the relatable characteristics it contains. While Mead obviously believed the complete opposite and argued that relatability should not be the only quality viewers look for in a work, it should not be abandoned as a vital piece to the formula that results in a successful work of entertainment. Relatability is not as much a problem as it is a necessity, without this quality viewers would be less likely to get the full experience that the directors wished. Mead argues that present-day viewers are unimaginative and un-empathetic, this is a bit of an over exaggeration as the audience is as empathetic and imaginative as a director/writer pushes them to be. While back when Shakespeare wrote plays his motive was obviously much different and for this reason one cannot fairly compare todays writers and audiences to that of the 1500's and expect no change. The power that the word "relatable" contains is staggering, it can cause an audience to change their views on the world, it forces a grown man to cry, the power of this problematic term is so strong that if a film does not contain such a quality it is indeed pushed aside an considered a "flop."  This forces directors to be more in tune with their audience and creates an unofficial bond with those who can truly relate. What sucks isn't the fact that an audience now expects relatability within a work, but that at one point they didn't, thus leaving no connection with the master creating the material of which they devoted so much of their time to. Therefore, yes the term and idea of a piece being "relatable" is problematic, problematic in the comprehensive nature of an audience of which inevitably changes over time along with it's writers.

Which Essay Is More Effective

After reading both "The Scourge of Relatability" by Rebecca Mead, and "How to Tame a Wild Tongue" by Glorida Anzaldúa I believe Anzaldúa creates a more effective argument when explaining the hardships of being a spanish speaker in the USA. She allows the audience to connect with her on a personal level by writing details of her childhood, her family and her experiences when speaking the different types of spanish. While Rebecca Mead makes her claim based upon another person's actions opposed to her own. Mead speaks as a commenter/critic while Anzaldúa speaks from the heart. Also, while reading the introduction of Mead's article it made me feel as those this work of literature was going to be preposterous, because she used words such as "Twitter", "stupid self", "suckiness". This words included in the introduction gave the portrayal that this article was going to be a hyperbole or satirical.
Anzaldúa makes a strong argument because she carefully explains what it's like to live with a language that is "embarrassing", a language that is subtly controlled by English over powering it. Anzaldúa use of strong words and phrases such as "attacks", "impenetrable as a stone"alienation" creates a powerful and vigorous tone through the passage. I believe Anzaldúa captures the audiences attention and makes the readers feel as though they have been hit by the words in order to understand and become involved in the reading.
I also feel that the situation in Mead's article is one that doesn't occur frequently enough to raise a huge concern and hardly anyone would even grasp the problem. Mead's problem is not one that is easily seen in everyday life, it is a problem one would have to really put some thought into to realize that the meaning of "relatable" is a problem. Anzaldúa's struggle is one that is frequent, since hispanic is the largest minority group in North America. Anzaldúa powerfully claims that the conflict of identification between cultures"suffer[ing]" and creates a sense of urgency and sympathy. Anzaldúa essay generates among the readers a want/need for change, she tells us why and how many people such as herself feel isolated, when they just want a sense of belonging.

What's the real problem?

Referring to literature, the word relatable has changed over time.  In Shakespears' time, the word meant it could be told and related to some other thing.  Today, we refer to the word as being related to ourselves and our own lives. Is this problematic? It would depend on which way you look at it.  For someone to classify a work of literature as Ira Glass did in the article based only on "relatability",  is showing themselves to be a shallow-minded person.

I do believe that most people do choose books to read that they can relate to themselves.  Many of the books young adult readers are choosing to read are about the future. These books include Divergent, The Giver and Hunger Games. In each of these books the author writes in a way that is believable up to a point, by creating characters similar to today's young adult readers.  The movie industry has chosen these books to be made into movies because the movie goers can relate to them and that's what sells movies.  But does that mean that other books are not good literature?  Absolutely not.  Over the years many different types of literature has been appreciated by millions of different people. To judge a piece of literature only by if it's relatable or not is ignorant.  Some may always appreciate one type of literature over another.

As the article points out, it's not the word that is problematic; it's the reader who views literature based solely on if it's relatable or not.  It's the reader that's not open to other forms of literature that one may actually have to use it's imagination or mind to understand the work that's problematic.

Relatable Comment

The word relatable has always changed back then it meant that something could be explained even though that is not what it means at all today people use the word in comparing things together. People all the time are using this word when they compare things to other things. For an example if someone was going through a time where their parents got a divorce a friend might not be going through the same type of split up they can say that they are going through something relatable to the other person. The author is correct in some case though if we can compare it to something else we really don't want to deal with it so we just try to pretend that it doesn't exist. Then we totally shun the thing that happens to us and go on with our lives and begin relating things to other things as well. People can also use the word relatable in writing as well when you have to write a paper one something that is relatable to cleaning products you could write the paper on different types of cleaning products that do the same thing as say Windex you just have to stay close to the product that is a glass cleaner. In todays world we use the word relatable a lot more then back then it is in tons of papers because its the word on how they compare things together. So when the word is used more times then not it is being used for the use of comparing things together.

The problematic word

The word "Relatable" is not as problematic as the author makes it seem. She goes on to explain that the word "Relatable" back in Shakespeare's time meant that something was explainable that it wasn't what it means today. In society today we use it as a way to use as an example if thats a way to put it, but we use it as an example by saying that if we do something like go to parties in college or we stay up all night that it is relatable to every other college student. The word itself has a different meaning from when Shakespeare was around it's the natural cycle of society changing things to suit them. Yes, it is a pain sometimes because even today there are words changing meaning and words being created by younger generations but in the end that generation views these changes as being helpful or make it easier to say things or give meaning to things its just the natural cycle of english. So for the author to go and say that it's a problem is crazy because it happens all the time, yes these days if we go through things that we can't relate to we end up rejecting it like the author said but it's the way things are, these days if we can't see things picture perfect or an almost exact picture of what we have gone through we seem to just reject it and that isn't always good but to go and say that the word is problematic is hard to back up because many people are now accustomed to the new meaning and have grown to accept it as the norm. So i disagree with her when she says its problematic because even though it may not be recognized as the true meaning "relatable" has changed whether they like it or not.

Powerful Moment

    Many people simply remember hurricane Katrina as a storm but I remember it as one of the most important times in my life. Not every ten-year-old has experienced the great amount of sympathy and fear that I had when twenty-three strangers camped out in my home for two months. They were my step dads relatives from New Orleans and I had never met any of them before. At the time I lived in a  small three bedroom house in Baton Rouge which is forty-five minutes away from New Orleans. 

    My home resembled a mini New Orleans Saints super-dome in a way because just like the super dome where most of the Katrina evacuees went, my house was also packed with strange people, few resources, and very cluttered. People occupied every room in the house including my own, I ended up sleeping on the couch the whole time they were living with us.  If I had complained about not having my room I'm sure I could have gotten it back but when those around you have been through such a traumatic experience bringing up something so petty just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. At night there was absolutely no room to walk around because people were sleeping on every square inch of my house, besides the kitchen. 

    Six of these strangers were kids my age and had to attend my elementary school towards the end of the school year. It was awkward for them because the school year was almost over and everything was already set in place. I tried to help them out by showing them where  their classes were and by introducing them to new people but things were so different from what they were use to they had a hard time adjusting.  

     I also struggled with getting accustomed to living with so many people. Nothing was ever where I left it, the house was always a mess, and people were not respectful of any of our belongings. My family didn't really own anything anymore, everything basically turned to community property where if someone wanted to use your belongings they just did without permission. Among my presence were murderers, drunkards, and thieves. I found this out as I got older but as a kid some of the stuff I heard and saw just didn't register. 

    Hurricane Katrina was such an eye opening experience for me because I had never lived with so many different types of people. Even though I was fortunate enough to not be  caught in the actual storm, it still was able to change my life. The experiences I had during this time good and bad helped me become a well rounded person and understand things about people that might be harder for others to grasp.  I'm blessed that I was able to help so many people in need.