Essay #3: Parodies

Professor Meisner
English 105.001

The Purpose of Painting a Parody
When we think of “The Scream,” images of a Halloween mask or a funny ovular shape head which appears to be melting pops into our heads. In fact the original creator of this painting is more unknown than its parodies. A classic is something that is able to remain a relatable or popular symbol throughout decades or centuries. The picture, “The Scream,” was painted over 100 years ago by Edvard Munch, a Norwegian who’s painting is a self-reflection of himself and his life. The man never knew he would remain a historic image for so many years to other artists, teenagers, and even comedians. So how can such a mourning image become so popular that it is repeatedly laughed at? A parody may be more than just a rewrite of the subject. It may incorporate more than just comedy and laughs. The intentions of the original creator are what count for the meaning of a parody since those artists are reusing the image or thought. To derive the true meaning and underlying emotion of a piece of work, the parodist must examine it, critic it, and then decide how to relate it to a broader perspective which can be shown to the public in another form with a new meaning. This is using the image for another intention, one that relates towards the parodists opinions.
Matt Groening, the creator of the popular t.v. show “The Simpsons,” drew the image of “Homer Scream,” and almost complete replica of “The Scream,” but with the main subject being of Homer Simpson, and with a completely different intent. Groening’s approach to this matter may not be as simplistic as some may think. Creating comedy out of such a horrific subject matter takes analysis of the original work, the subject matter of the new work, and the reaction from the viewers. A parody is a form of borrowing and artists love to comply with each other and keep building on top of meanings and messages. This is all about creating art which is supplied to the public for provoking thought. But how does the former artists, or the one being reused and “made fun of,” typically feel about the new form of art which is being created? How do they look at it? Is it flattery? Is it humorous or is it harmful to their intentions? By comparing the qualities and intentions of the two artists, Munch and Groening, and their creations of “The Scream” and “Homer Scream,” we will find that a parody, although borrowed, becomes a new form of art by remaking old meanings which relate to the modern age.
A parody is an extension of an already existing piece of art. It takes something which has been viewed by the public, usually well-known to some degree, and reworks certain aspects to create a new meaning. Parodies are most commonly known for their comical quality and are taken lightly or not serious. But parodies have the ability to be reviewed and critiqued as well. In examining the reflexive work of a parody, Michele Hannoosh proposes that when a parody is made it is, “suggesting its own potential as a model or target, a work to be rewritten, transformed, even parodied in its turn” (114). This is how art is everlasting and continuous; it is able to build upon old stories and forms to generating new questions or ideas, and “reminding the reader of the relativism of any work of art, and also of the richness of creative possibilities in an allegedly limited single source” (Nunning, 117). In this sense a parody is not a form of ridicule upon an old subject matter because it is not quite criticizing or mocking it. A parody is heavily influenced by an old form which the artist feels they would like to comment on. Ansgar Nunning describes this as, “a double-coded dialogue between the present and the past” (130). The parodist looks for figures and symbols which it can imitate and translate into modern illustrations. “One must take ideas of the past and pick them apart, test them, agree, disagree, shape and reshape them to create something new” (Guling) and this “new” can take any form as long as it is influenced. A parodist’s purpose is to evoke the public not to abuse the former artist. However, there are instances where borrowing from an artist is noted as flattery. In most cases a parody never appears as flattery but they do have some similarities. Richard Stengel defines flattery as, “strategic praise,” which has a purpose that may be, “exaggerated or it may be accurate and truthful, but it is praise that seeks some result” (1). A parodist has assumed that the artist from which he or she is borrowing from has mastered or created a relatable image which is effective. The borrowed work has already reached a level of achievement.
Whenever artwork is created all background history and events in the artists life has an impact on their work and ideas and meanings behind it. Intentions within the art and the outcome are important and should be examined in both the original and parodied work. Edvard Munch was a painter born in Norway and worked throughout the German Expressionist years of painting. At the age of five, Munch’s mother died of tuberculosis in 1868, and as he grew attached to his older sister, Sophie, he was only let down once she too passed away of T.B.. It was these crucial years of his childhood which corrupted the rest of his life, regressing to a stage of embitterment. Yet he was able to convey all he needed within his paintings. He once said that his illnesses are what kept him alive, “My sufferings are part of my self and my art. They are undistinguishable from me, and their destruction would destroy my art” (Lubow). For Munch all he had was his paintings and they were his only form of conveying so much emotion. “The Scream” was painted in 1983 portraying a ovular shape thing (taking on no sex) mourning and crying in despair while the sun sets in the background as a couple walks behind. The face is melting almost dripping down as Munch never cared for preciseness but for the emotion one could get from the paint. Reinhold Heller describes the painting as if, “The hero of love must not exist anymore: his sexuality has crawled out of him and now it screams through all of nature for a new means of manifestation is in order to do no more than live through the same torture, the same battle all over again” (131). This battle which has fought was, “… between mind and sex out of which the latter came triumphant…The mind has been destroyed, and sex, the primevally eternal, screams out for new victims” (131). All this emotion was expressed within one piece of artwork and even though it is a personal journey and incident which the painter is reflecting upon, it is obviously reusable since the public has a deep connection to either the widely known shapes or emotions which can be conveyed through these shapes. Munch himself has commented on this painting after he saw a vision while walking with his two friends one evening. He writes the, “ air turned to blood…the faces of my comrades became a garnish yellow-white,” as he heard, “…a huge endless scream course through nature” (Lubow). It is obviously a personal experience which is a reflection on this man’s life and the pain he went through and all he lost in the world.
Out of this painful tragedy, people are able to find humor or reflectance to this subject matter, which is why it has been borrowed so frequently. Each parody or remake of this image has its own individual reasons for its reusing, as does Matt Groening, the artist behind the comedy cartoon show, “The Simpsons.” The show has been running for 18 years and is successful upon its ability to take human problems and serious situations and turn them into laughing matters. Along with its sarcastic and critical approach to human nature, parodies play a main role in the show as well. Jonathan Gray makes a note between the amount of intellect and consumption a joke may have to reach a commemorative level. Some of the jokes on “The Simpsons,” “require a certain degree of cultural capital,” whereas when the viewer is familiar to more popular images and well-known issues a joke has, “cultural competence” (Gray 235). This allows the parody to be more effective and, “goes down easy and so may be consumed more freely” (Gray 235). “The Scream” has been re-published a plethora of times so its sight makes it recognizable. But the painting also requires a degree of cultural capital or knowledge of what the image means and the feelings it convey for its parody to be laughable. “Homer Scream” is a picture of the main characters face, which coincidentally is already a long ovular shape, with the silhouettes of his family standing in the bridge, while the wild sunset color lines and swirls are repeated in the background. Homer represents stupidity for the most part of the show and he is constantly loosing anything he gains in life. He has no real emotions and desires in life that constitutes as conventional. Although bad situations seem to be happening all around him he is never phased or worried about them.
So why is this parody so comical and laughable when we see it? First off, there is a major contrast between the two. Munch’s painting is of his life’s emotions, his pains and recognitions, while Homer stands for nothingness, no pain, no real feelings. When we look at the painting “The Scream” an absence of sound appears in our heads as if the subject is screaming for his life yet nothing happens. Munch’s exact description of his painting was the “air turned to blood…(the) faces of my comrades became a yellow-white” and in his own ears he heard, “a huge endless scream course through nature” (Lubow). The screaming in this painting is from the indefinable pain that resides in life’s predicaments. Rolf Stenersen, an art collector of Edvard Munch’s works, describes the painting as agony, suggesting that, “…the artist tries to show how a landscape’s colors and lines may represent a threat to an unbalanced, hypersensitive individual who suddenly one evening feels totally paralyzed by the landscape as lines and colors close in on him with suffocating reality. His mouth twists into a cry of agony, and yet he is unable to utter a sound” (48). Munch is telling is about his life, and informing us of this wariness which humans carry around due to all the agony which we go through. It all has a profound affect on us and there are some moments where they take over all our senses and captivate us.
However, when we see the image of Homer screaming, a loud obnoxious noise rings through our ears, and our first intention is to laugh at the bizarre sound. Groening’s intent for this picture is to allow the public to laugh at such idiotic behavior and allow enjoyment to arise from other people’s pain. Henri Bergson designed three observations of the comic spirit, one of them being that an, “absence of feeling…usually accompanies laughter” (1). Homer lacks many normal feeling which humans have thus allowing him to never fully understand the world, and in return we laugh at him. Our laughter, for that brief moment, allows us to loose all human feelings, since we are laughing at someone else’s pain, we do not think about how that pain would reflect on us. This is what makes it funny, Bergson explains, “People do not laugh at landscapes…but at humans or at animals in which people see human elements. Nor can people laugh without putting aside their emotions. People may laugh at one they pity, but their pity must first be silenced. Emotion stifles laughter, intellect kindles it” (1).
So what do these two pictures have in common besides the obvious placement of people and similar shapes and background? Munch is informing his viewers; the painting is an autobiography, and one’s lessons and feelings can be related to another humans’ experiences. Groening realizes this pain and is aware that the image represents an ultimate loss of life. Through his knowledge of the symbolic meaning of Munch’s painting, Groening can inform the public with another feeling or emotion. Homer Simpson is one of those “characters who remove themselves from society,” which allows him to be comical (Bergson 1). This comedy, which Groening displays, “does not necessarily direct itself at moral faults; rather it usually aims to correct social aloofness” (Bergson 1). This is what connects the two paintings, and it is what makes one serious and one comical. When artists inform the public they are putting information which we think about and use to correct ourselves. We relate what we can to our lives to make them better, or more understandable. The viewers of “The Simpsons” laugh at Homer and realize his lack of pain and sense, he does not function well in society and life’s hardships. We laugh at this inability yet are reminded that these are emotions which allow us to live and function in life. In a sense we learn what not to do or what is socially wrong. Munch is capturing the same essence in his paintings. He is showing us the emotions which have an effect on our social ability. He is explaining a feeling or emotional problem.
Munch, if alive today, may be personally offended by the many parodies of his work, but an artist must accept that when they publish a piece of work it is there for the taking. It is there to inform and to reuse by other artists. Although Munch’s and Groening’s desires were both to inform viewers about society, they each had a different intent. Groening is foremost a comedian and comedy “aims to please…and may require more accurate perception than that available to everyone; therefore, comedy belongs to art” (Bergson). “Tragedy,” which looks at the unique and individual, as Bergson states, “gives an impression of life, and develops out of emotions,” whereas comedy “depicts general characters, universals of humanity” (Bergson 2). Groening’s intent was to be comical while Munch portrayed a serious side. People are entitled to create upon each other’s work because “everyone has their own rhythm and choices which they put into their work, whether is it is a piece of work which they will claim as new or work which they will call an imitation or cover,” or parody in this instance (Martinez 4). Either way, artists “caringly add and input ideas and information to educate and amuse the public,” (Martinez 6) which is exactly what Groening did. Throughout all the parodies which were produced from Munch’s ideas, he still was able to successfully publish his own intent.


Works Cited
Grey, Jonathan. “Television Teaching: Parody, The Simpsons, and Media Literacy Education.” Critical Studies in Media Communication. Aug 2005, Vol. 22, Iss. 3, pp. 223-238.
Guling, Renee. “Final Draft of Plagiarism Paper.” Weblog post. "I came to live out loud" - emile zola. 9 April 2007. reneegulino1118.blogspot.com. 25 April 2007.

Hannoosh, Michele. “The Reflexive Function of Parody.” Comparative Literature. Spring 1989, Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pp. 113-126.
Heller, Reinhold. “Munch His Life and Work.” Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Lubow, Arthur. “Edvard Munch: Beyond The Scream.” Smithsonian. March 2006, Vol. 36, Iss. 12, pp 58-67.
Martinez, Luisa. “Plagiarism.” Weblog post. English Blog. 9 April 2007. onlinethoughtexhibition.blogspot.com. 25 April 2007.
Nunning, Ansgar. “The Creative Role of Parody in Transforming Literature and Culture: An Outline of a Functionalist Approach to Postmodern Parody.” European Journal Of English Studies. Aug. 1999, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 123-137.
Stenersen, Rolf. “Edvard Munch: Close-up of a Genius.” Oslo: Gyldendal, 1969.
Stengel, Richard. “You’re Too Kind: A Brief History of Flattery.” You’re Too Kind. Kenneth B. Smith. 10 April 2007
.

Brainstorm for essay three

For essay number three (Influence, Origins, and Invention), I plan to write about topic number one. My primary evidence would be a piece of original artwork which I would compare to another piece of work that has obviously been influence by the previous form. What first comes to mind is to search for paintings. I, myself a painter, have been taught numerous times throughout school to be influenced by the "old masters." It is highly encouraged to study old forms and techniques and pracice with them within one's own work. There are many newer paintings which are based upon older pictures. Now, there are many differnet kinds of influences, reusing, and parodies. An example which I may look into would be of the paintng "The Scream" (or "The Cry") by Edvard Munch. This german expressionist painting has been made fun of a plethora of times. However, it has also been praised for its symbolic portrayal which other artist may have incorporated or used in their own work (not as a parody). There are many different forms of borrowing and being influenced; each can be used for the good or the bad, however either way the new form is made for some intent or purpose. The borrower does not just take for pure pleasure but to put another meaning out into the world. They incorporate it into their own language to have an outcome that alters the affect on the viewer.
The evidence I will need for this essay would be other critics and viewers opinions. I need other artists who have used a painting and incorperated it into their own. I need to know the meanings behind the two forms and how people percieve them. Knowing the outcome of the newly published work will determine whether its impact is successful.

The role of imagination

Imagination is the secret behind art. What we conjure in our minds, is the personal touch we add to the outcome of our work. When we write, we think of everything we have been taught and what we have learned to help educate ourselves and the viewer. But in order to personalize our thoughts we add that touch of imagination. There is the "what if" questions that pop into our heads all the time and if we explore them on paper we begin to form scenarios and new ideas. This makes it interesting and provokes new thoughts.
Babies and kids have the wildest imaginations since there are no boundaries in their worlds. Without boundaries we more free and we think without questioning the wrong. Wrong confines us and it tells us what we can and can not do. But if there is no wrong there are plenty more opportunities and forms we can create. Imagination is what allows us to add new to the old and keep us thinking.
Applying this to academic writing, it is harder to be imaginative without crossing the "rules" which english teachers have taught us. Students must follow certain guidelines and stay within their respective boundary. As we grow older we are allowed more leeway or given an "artistic lisence" but we still limit ourselves sometimes to remain within the norm. Being too drastic or unordinary can be unliked and cause too much concern.
It's all about finding the balance and submitting what we believe is realistic or effective. That is however what our purpose is when we wrtie, to have an affect on the viewer. We leave them with our own thoughts, our own imaginations.

Plagiarism

Professor Meisner
English 105.001
May I Borrow That?
Throughout grade school, when the teacher would tell us to take notes or copy something, I always remember the student sitting next to me would turn and ask, “Do you have some paper I could borrow?” This question always annoyed me not because I had to give away my paper but because they were not borrowing, they were taking and never returning something I had given to them. That paper, which they were about to write upon to make it their own, was never to return to me. Why did they not just ask if they could have the paper or use it? Perhaps the word borrowing has a more polite connotation than the words use, have, take, or even steal. But does borrowing become stealing if the object never travels back to the rightful owner? Does asking for permission make it just or lawful? Or maybe I should feel proud or honored that I am helping out someone in the world. That that paper they write on, which may just be some ideas they are conjuring, will become a great paper or story they write, something exciting to read. I, then, have helped work to be produced. It may be the same feeling an intern has when they have helped on the set of a popular movie being filmed. Their name may not necessarily appear on the big screen when the credits roll but they know that they worked on that production. Unfortunately that is not enough in this day and age. Credit and acknowledgment are everything. Possession and ownership have taken over people’s minds and we seem to be more greedy than ever. Maybe I should start copyrighting every sheet of paper that is supposedly mine.
The concept of plagiarism has always been associated with feelings of shame and immodesty. The word has been preached to scare those grade-schoolers who believed they were just “borrowing.” Most teachers and books propose that the word means lying, stealing, cheating, or lack of originality. To put it in most simple terms, Barbara Francis writes, “to plagiarize is to take work that is not your own and submit it as your own, without giving credit to the person who created it” (14). This explanation of plagiarism lacks a sense of the complexity of the word and the confusion which follows behind it. When someone has created something that is original why should we so immediately put a stamp on it that claims it is our own individual idea? To solidify the broad meaning of plagiarism, Rebecca Moore Howard, a writer and professor at Syracuse University, tries using, “more specific, less culturally burdened terms: fraud, insufficient, and excessive repetition” (Howard 475). Howard would rather eliminate the word altogether. This would seem like a dream, to travel back to times when borrowing and being influenced was appreciated. Borders would be indefinable on people’s “property” so they would become less stingy and protective. By living in a society where copyrighting is forbidden, people would rely on borrowing by permission and plagiarism may cease to exist. Plagiarism is not simply stealing, it is about following our ancestors work and creating new expressions upon it. The intent and amount of originality which is added to a work of art must be examined before proclaiming one has plagiarized.
Before the printing press was invented, people relied on word of mouth. Stories were told from memory and obviously they changed each time. This not only allowed tales to travel slower but the original was not of importance, instead originality was appreciated. Each story teller had their own rhythm, their own way of speaking, and their own diction, all which help create the plot. Creativity was the main importance and stories were told for pleasure not for money and fame. Imitation and borrowing were forms of flattery and “most cultures valued following traditions more than creating original work” (Francis 20). Once the printing press was invented it allowed books to be made quicker and travel around the world faster. This allowed two major events to evolve. One, copyright laws were enacted and, two, writing had become a profession (Francis).
It almost seems as though the invention of the printing press ruined our little world of folk tales and story time and erupted into a disaster of mass distribution and eventually theft. However, books “helped to educate people in a world where many were illiterate” (Francis 23). Still, fame and money mattered more than education once the world spread to be populated in more than just one region. Writers realized that what they wrote could be copyrighted as “theirs,” and they could be given money for it. In fact, since 1787, the U.S. Constitution writes that they have the power, “…to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (Francis 25). Equality was no longer in balance; people were poor and rich and only fame would give one money.
People began to copyright what was theirs for fear that originality might run out. In other words, lack of one’s own voice was appearing. Everything had already seemed to be said. This fear is almost illogical because the word “originality” seems to be overestimated. Washington Times writer Scott Galupo believes that the notion of plagiarism is just “as slippery as the notion of originality” (1). He writes that Vanity Fair essayist Christopher Hitchens warns people that they are making a “very large claim” to say they “know originality when you see it” (Galupo 1). People fear that all originality has been taken from them and all that is left is the thought of inspiration and imitation. But this is absurd since all creation has some individuality within it. Like stated before, everyone has their own rhythm and choices which they put into their work, whether it is a piece of work which they will claim as new or work which they will call an imitation or cover. Something which can not be copied is uniqueness. Yet Galupo still questions originality by claiming that there is something that appears every once in a while which seems refreshing and unheard or unseen. “The evolution of art,” he claims, “requires artists- novelists, painters, songwriters- to imitate before they innovate” (Galupo 1). This is true since from when we are born untill we die we are constantly taught and reminded of the “old masters,” the ones who have come before us. We read Shakespeare and Greek mythologies, we listen to music before our time, and we study art which was painted centuries ago. People “study old forms, experiment with new ones and,” Galupo claims that, “if lucky, stumble onto a fresh voice” (1). Apparently a “fresh voice” is what society is looking for in these days; the smaller details of originality are being overlooked and only something “new” will become famous.
However there are many occasions where old-fashioned can be very affective, attractive and reusable. So what is wrong with having originality that encompasses old styles and features which are put out into the world to educate and inspire? Jonathan Lethem reminds us of what is called an “open source,” or, “pre-existing melodic fragments and larger musical frame-works,” that are, “freely reworked” (2). Although this term is usually applied towards blues and jazz music, the concept tests that of plagiarism. Rephrasing and reworking an art form cannot be held as plagiarism since it is putting that touch of individuality into it or originality. Then again, Lethem defends the artists who are taking recognition for art work which is less eminent. He defines this as “imperial plagiarism” or “the free use of third world or ‘primitive’ art works and styles by more privileged (and better-paid) artist” (Lethem 7). Some artists may feel violated that another more famous individual has used most of their work without changing it and without giving credit. Sharing is not as fair when the outcome favors one person more than the other. This deals with the respect we give towards each other; we are taught to cite other’s work when taking their exact words but only so much credit can be given when someone adds new to something old. It is unjust to be paid or acknowledge for something which embraces no originality or uniqueness.
Plagiarism cannot be used when an artist has been influenced and added or even changed some aspects of the original work. It is the taking of another person’s work without conforming it to a new appearance of creativity and passing it off as original which makes plagiarism. The magazine The Economist wrote, “plagiarists, like forgers, have guilty intent, but of interestingly different kinds…forgers sin against authenticity, plagiarists against originality” (“What’s Wrong With Copying”). Plagiarism is an act which is immoral due to the lack of ingenuity and concern for the artist who created the source. Intentions, good or evil, can identify whether an artist is genuinely creating artwork or has simply copy and pasted. It is difficult to accuse someone of plagiarism since finding the original intent is unobtainable however, it is distinguishable when an artist has been influenced and carefully borrowed. Artists explore and redefine meanings to fit their personal desire to create an outcome which differs in some way from the source they obtained. They caringly add and input ideas and information to educate and amuse the public. It is just like the old folktales, traveling around and changing form or meaning to begin new morals which revolve around the customs and cultures of society.
Everyone has something “new” to contribute to the world of art. We collaborate intentionally and unintentionally and neither is wrong. Art strives best when it has others to support it and explain its being. Sources are there for people to bounce ideas off of and from there we work on more forms of integration. Howard says it best when explaining that imaginations are “only the jumble of what we see and hear; creativity lies more in the mixing than the making” (478). Plagiarism is degrading and morally wrong but borrowing is part of creating art.
















Works Cited
Francis, Barbara. Other People’s Words: What Plagiarism Is and How to Avoid It. NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2005. 11-25.
Galupo, Scott. “Artful Mastery of ‘Borrowing’.” The Washington Times (DC). 17 November 2006.
Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Sexuality. Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Mar., 2000), pp 473-491.
Lethem, Jonathan. “The Ecstasy of Influence.” Harper’s Magazine. Feb. 2007, Vol. 314, Iss. 188, pp 59-71.
“What’s Wrong With Copying.” The Economist. 5 April 2007. Vol. 343, Iss. 8011. pp77- 78.

Final Draft

Professor Meisner
English 105.001
8 March 2007
Wikipedia Defines Anarchism
Introduction
In today’s society, gossip is exchanged within people’s conversations daily. Among friends, business workers and, of course, in entertainment we crave for fleshy pieces of information that excite us to help create discussion. But then again no statement is set in stone. It is almost impossible to define anything without years of historic or scientific research and even then, what is proven, is questioned. There seems to be an aware sign attached to every source of information these days. Precautions are taken and suspicion arises when people read new information or question what they believe to already know. It is easy for an old dictionary or encyclopedia to become an artifact. Jim Giles wrote an article where a comparison was done between an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and an older source, the Encyclopedia of Britannica. The results showed that the online source, which is updated frequently, showed more mistakes and errors than in the elderly source. However, an information scientist at the University of Illinois, Michael Twidale, reported that people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So no source is ever completely accurate but it is the authors and editors duty to strive for that perfection, to educate the public. Wikipedia does this, or, at least they try to. This encyclopedia is on the world wide web and can be accessed by anyone. It can be read and edited by the public and common people. It provides definitions that are updated for new results, it educates, and it gives a lot of gossip.
Wikipedia is not only creating chat forums within its site but there is much to talk about its use in general. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. It was brought to the public’s attention that Wikipedia is free, easy to use, and easy to change. This means that anyone with a different opinion or thought on a subject is allowed to add to a definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. This is what creates so much concern about the site; what is true and what is gossip? Stacy Schiff, a writer from The New Yorker comments on the site, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). So, how truthful are the definitions of this encyclopedia? Is it really worth using for credible information? What makes other sources, such as books, any more sincere and trustworthy? To check if Wikipedia’s definitions are credible I have set out to compare and contrast the information to other sources. By checking the facts presented in the definition of anarchism, I will see if Wikipedia is a reliable site for academic use or even personal indulgence.
Literature Review:
Wikipedia’s entry is long and filled with historical facts on the first anarchists and the different types of anarchism. It never analyzes anarchism as one definition, instead it drifts off into explaining the multiple views history has taken on this word. In fact in the beginning of the entry the writer states that “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold,” and that the entry will try to characterize the different varieties and traditions of anarchism (Anarchism, Wikipedia). They do provide the reader with one simple definition which combines the thoughts that most anarchist believe. Wikipedia writes, anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination” (Anarchism). First, to test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defines anarchism as “a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” Webster’s definition is “the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty.” So far, my consensus was that anarchism is an idea, it is the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There does not seem to be much difference between the internet and any other source written by professional editors.
In 1962, George Woodcock wrote a book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable since the author examined years of history on anarchism and created a book defining its purpose. The difference is Woodcock never defines the word in just a single sentence where as Wikipedia formulates a typical conception that most anarchist would agree on. This is fair when creating a meaning for a word, to look at all opposing sides and assemble the similarities, but Woodcock does more than this. He surpasses the simple thought of rejection of government and explains anarchism as an idea or an action. This noun begins to take on the complexity of a religion by which man abides. Woodcock writes that “its [anarchism] ultimate aim is always social change, its present attitude is always one of social condemnation…its method is always that of social rebellion” (9). He begins to contradict the dictionary definitions by saying that “mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power” (9). Since a form of action must appear this leaves Woodcock to explain the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. From the untamed, public displays of punks throughout the late 1970’s and as portrayed in movies, anarchists are seen as destructive people. Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for this assumption thus creating the innuendo of the word. The original view of anarchism was to fix and help society. Instead through their destructive actions, “their plans of reconstruction have been oversimplified and unconvincing” (13). So far the simple definition on Wikipedia is not incorrect but misses out on the depth and, surprisingly, recent information. Even though Wikipedia does not notify the readers about the punks and anarchist movement in the 1970’s it does supply some history of the individualists who fought for anarchism and their philosophy on the matter. Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom are all historians on the subject, are mentioned in both the book and the website. Since the definition on the website is not four hundred pages long, like the book, it cannot contain as much information but can inform the reader on all the topics surrounding it. In fact the website links all the names to their own pages of definitions. In a sense Wikipedia gives a good overview of the word and its history.
Wikipedia does give the origin of the word in the beginning paragraph. Anarchism is derived from the greek avapxia which means “without a ruler.” Both Wikipedia and
Woodcock inform the viewer of this and have a similar definition to support it. Wikipedia
writes, “in its most general meaning [anarchism], is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.” Woodcock states, “thus anarchy itself can clearly be used in a general context to mean…the positive condition of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the presentation of order” (10). In fact both are close in diction as well; rulership is either undesirable or unnecessary. So far, Wikipedia does not have any information which it can not be held as untruthful.
I was shocked to read that William Godwin, a philosopher on anarchism, was married to Marry Wollstonecraft and had a daughter named Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein (Wikipedia). I checked these facts by reading into Woodcock’s book and found not only was this true but their daughter eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin’s ideas. After looking up William Godwin on Wikipedia, I did not find much on Percy Shelley being a disciple to Godwin or eloping with his daughter. More information is collected and presented in Woodcock’s book than what is shown on the one entry of Wikipedia. Of course, this information is not completely relevant to the definition of anarchism yet both sources incorporate it. Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s information, once again, is not wrong but less wholesome.
Another source which I tested the entry against was the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX. It is written by several professors who have studied Philosophy and Political Science. Due to their degrees in these subjects this seems to be a trustworthy source. I was particularly interested in John P. Clark’s entry of What is Anarchism when he begins to question George Woodcock’s definition of the word. Not only does he attack Woodcock, but points out “simple definitions (Clark, 4)” written by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin, all who are contributors to explaining anarchism. However, out of all the
writers, he gives most credit to Woodcock for attempting to define the three characteristics of anarchism, “a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of desirable future society; and means of passing from one to the other” (Clark, 6). Clark goes on to write that “any definition which reduces anarchism to a single dimension, such as its critical element, must be judged seriously inadequate” (6). This would include Wikipedia’s entry on the word anarchism since they narrow the definition to base anarchism on just attitudes surrounding the rejection of government.
After explaining what anarchism is not, Clark attempts to define the word himself. His definition is much more in depth and extensive. “There are four elements to this proposed definition,” Clark writes, “…(1) a view of an ideal, no coercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2) a criticism of existing society and its institutions…(3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institutions of no coercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives” (13). His definition embodies everything that previous philosophers have said, but he combines them all to make more than just a simple definition. Clark writes this in hope to clarify the word anarchism, which is what any dictionary or encyclopedia is trying to do.
Methods
I set out to compare Wikipedia to other definitions by using dictionaries and books. First, I collected all the definitions from the dictionaries or books and compared them to Wikipedia’s. After reading more of the entry on Wikipedia.com, I searched for that similar information in the books.
Results
I was extremely shocked to find that Wikipedia’s entry was not wrong or even brief. It was informing and correct. However, the books written by philosophers were much more interesting, capturing the writer’s excitement and extreme curiosity in the subject. They were far more inclusive and educating.
Discussion
So, what is Wikipedia good for? Since all the information matched up rather well, my opinion on the website has changed slightly. It is a fast way to obtain information, but just because one definition matches up does not mean all the others will too. Wikipedia is also challenging the older way of obtaining facts. In Schiff’s article a user named William Connolley believes that the site “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about” (“Know It All”, 26). Many philosophers and editors who have worked for years researching and specializing to write books and articles are being over looked by the quicker source of information- the World Wide Web. Credit is not being given where it should. Overall, Wikipedia is as good as any other cheat sheet. It summarizes, picks out key points and explains it as best as it can to people who will not go out to obtain the original copy. A book can contain more educated thoughts in 300 or 400 pages than a website can. Maybe it is not as fast but it is a safer bet. Wikipedia seems like a chat room, a place where people can collaborate and discuss opinions or thoughts on words and events. For this reason it is acceptable since discussing or arguing a point for the better good of a word is educating and informing. For now it should not be used as a credible source because (1) it may not be true and (2) it is far more educating to actually read a book by a philosopher who argues his or her point in order to be published.




Works Cited

“ Anarchism.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. 2002.
“Anarchism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 18 Feb. 2007. .
“Anarchism.” Wikipedia.com. 15 Feb. 2007.
.
Clark, John, P. “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Nomos XIX. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press, 1978. 3-23.
Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” 28 March 2006.

Schiff, Stacy. “Know It All.” The New Yorker. 24 July 2006. 31 July 2006 .
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.

Disconnecting

For this assignment we were suppose to disconnect from technology as much as we could. I chose to check my email once a day, check my phone once a day, not IM anyone, and not use word processor. To me, this task was easy. The only reason I ever check my email is incase of cancelled classes or changed meeting times. In fact I never use my email when I'm not at college because it is a hassle, especially when you do not have fast internet connection. For the five days we performed these rituals, I never even looked at my phone. I left it in my dorm and found that I really didn't need it. I'm someone who likes to talk to people face to face so I didn't even get any phone calls all week. As for IMing, I do not even have it downloaded on my computer. Once again, talking to people over a screen does not seem very personal to me. From February 26 to Wednesday 28, I was sick and found myself lying in bed for most of the time. This made it really easy to disconnect. I never used the internet and did not have too much homework so Word Processor was easy to stay away from. Honestly, I did not learn much from this assignment. It was easy and I have done it before. I would much rather spend my time reading, practicing my hobbies, and talking to people face to face than be sitting at my desk glaring at the computer screen. Maybe it is just my lifestyle but I do not think it is too hard to stay away from the technology that we have incorporated into our lives. Obviously, in the 1800's and before then, humans have survived on less technology. What strikes me as difficult is if we had to take away a washing machine and do our laundry with our hands. Or how about the T.V., we would have to go out to buy the newspaper everyday for local news. I already do not own a microwave or ever use my dryer but what if electricity was taken away from us. I believe our lives would be much more active and stenuous. Our daily chores would change and we would be waking up at early hours to catch more light. We would live more like farmers and by what I know, they live a pretty healthy lifestyle since they do not sit around on a couch watching T.V. or in a chair staring at a computer.

Firts Draft!

Wikipedia defines Anarchism:
Is it True or Truthy?
Introduction:
Angry mobs of punks who destroy public and private property to show their angst against the government is a typical conception of anarchists. Thanks to Stephen Colbert, who decided to change data by updating Wikipedia.com with false accusations, this assumption can become a fact. On The Colbert Report, a television show, host Stephen Colbert decided to put Wikipedia to the test. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which can be written and updated by the common people. It is free, easy to use, and easy to change. This means that anyone with a different opinion or thought on a subject is allowed to add to the definition. Colbert realized that if enough people change the definition of a certain word a new meaning will evolve. Many viewers have discretions about the site. Stacy Schiff, a writer at the New York Times writes, “Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse” (“Know It All”, 4). Jim Giles wrote an article announcing that Wikipedia has been compared to the Encyclopedia of Britannica and more errors were located in the Wikipedia. However, Michael Twidale thought people still find it “shocking to see how many errors there are in Britannica” (Giles). So how truthful are the definitions of this encyclopedia? Is it really worth using for credible information. What makes other sources, such as books, any more sincere and trustworthy? To check if Wikipedia’s definitions are misconceiving I have set out to compare and contrast the information to other sources. By checking the facts presented in the definition of anarchism I will see if Wikipedia is a reliable site for academic use or even personal indulgence.
Literature Review:
Wikipedia has many subtopics and links which help define a word and its history. For the word anarchism, Wikipedia has the origins of the word, the first anarchists and their perception of the meaning, and descriptions of the different kinds of anarchism. The first definition that appears under the word anarchism is “a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination”(Wikipedia.com).To test this simple definition I took two other dictionaries. One online, Dictionary.com, and the other a well-known book, the Webster’s New World Dictionary. Dictionary.com defined anarchism as “a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.” Webster’s definition is “the theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with individual liberty.” So far my consensus was that anarchism is an idea; the thought of revolting against the government to obtain liberty. There did not seem to be much difference between the internet and a published book written by professional editors.
In 1962 George Woodcock wrote a whole book explaining his thought on the word anarchism. This source seems respectable due to the years of research that this historian put into writing pages defining one word. Of course he never defines the word in just a single sentence but it began to take on a new meaning. The history and thoughts that accumulated for the word are so in depth that defining it seemed impossible. Anarchism began to appear as more than just an idea, it was almost a religion which man abides to.
Woodcock writes that “its [anarchism] ultimate aim is always social change, its present attitude is always one of social condemnation…its method is always that of social rebellion” (9). He begins to contradict the dictionary definitions by saying that “mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power” (9). Woodcock also brings up the misconstruction that most people have of anarchists. As I stated in the beginning, anarchists are seen as destructive people and Woodcock writes that they are partly responsible for that assumption. This is where the innuendo of the word appears. The original view of anarchism was to fix and help society. Instead through their destructive actions, “their plans of reconstruction have been oversimplified and unconvincing” (13). So far the definition on Wikipedia does not seem to be missing out on much. It compares relatively well except that it may not go as in-depth to try and explore the exact definition. However, Wikipedia does touch on every subject such as the individualists who fought for anarchism or their philosophy on the matter. Peter Kropotkin, William Godwin, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, whom are all historians on the subject, are mentioned in both the book and the website. Since the definition on the website is not four hundred pages long, like the book, it cannot contain as much information but can inform the reader on all the topics surrounding it. In fact the website links all the names to their own pages of definitions. In a sense Wikipedia gives a good overview of the word and its history.
Wikipedia does give the origin of the word in the beginning paragraph. Anarchism is derived from the greek avapxia which means “without a ruler.” Both Wikipedia and Woodcock inform the viewer of this and have a similar definition to back it up. Wikipedia writes, “in its most general meaning [anarchism], is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.” Woodcock states, “thus anarchy itself can clearly be used in a general context to mean…the positive condition of being unruled because rule is unnecessary for the presentation of order” (10). In fact both are close in diction as well; rulership is either undesirable or unnecessary. So far Wikipedia does not have any information which it can not be held as untruthful.
I was shocked to read that William Godwin, a philosopher on anarchism, was married to Marry Wollstonecraft and had a daughter named Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein (Wikipedia). I checked these facts by reading into Woodcock’s book and found not only was this true but their daughter eloped with Percy Shelley, a poet who was a follower of Godwin’s ideas. After looking up William Godwin on Wikipedia I did not find much on Percy Shelley being a disciple to Godwin or eloping with his daughter. Maybe after a few more clicked links the reader may find this information but it seems much easier to simply obtain a copy of Woodcock’s book. Rather than search through entries on Wikipedia all the information and more can be found by reading a hard copy of facts.
Another Source which I tested the entry against was the book Anarchism: Nomos XIX. It is written by several professors who have studied Philosophy and Political Science. Their degrees in these special regions make them trustworthy advocates. I was particularly interested in John P. Clark’s entry of What is Anarchism when he begins to question George Woodcock’s definition of the word. Not only does he attack Woodcock but points out “simple definitions (Clark, 4)” written by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bakunin, all who are contributors to explaining anarchism. However, out of all the writers he gives most credit to Woodcock for attempting to define the three characteristics of anarchism, “a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of desirable future society; and means of passing from one to the other” (Clark, 6). Clark goes on to write that “any definition which reduces anarchism to a single dimension, such as its critical element, must be judged seriously inadequate” (6). This would include Wikipedia’s entry on the word anarchism.
After explaining what anarchism is not, Clark attempts to define the word himself. His definition is much more in depth and extensive. “There are four elements to this proposed definition,” Clark writes, “…(1) a view of an ideal, no coercive, nonauthoritarian society; (2) a criticism of existing society and its institutions…(3) a view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal; and (4) a strategy for change, involving immediate institutions of no coercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralist alternatives” (13). His definition embodies everything that previous philosophers have said but he combines them all to make more than just a simple definition. Clark writes this in hope to clarify the word anarchism which is what any dictionary or encyclopedia is trying to do.
Methods:
I set out to compare Wikipedia to other definitions by using dictionaries and books. First, I collected all the definitions which the dictionaries or books contained and compared them to Wikipedia’s. After reading more of the entry on Wikipedia.com I searched for that similar information in the books.
Results:
I was extremely shocked to find that Wikipedia’s entry was not wrong or even brief. It was informing and correct. However, the books written by philosophers were much more interesting, capturing the writer’s excitement and extreme curiosity in the subject. They were far more inclusive and educating.
Discussion:
So what is Wikipedia good for? Since all the information matched up rather well, my opinion on the website has changed slightly. It is a fast way to obtain information but just because one defintion matches up does not mean all the others will too. In Schiff’s article a user named William Connolley believes that the site “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about” (“Know It All”, 26). Many philosophers and editors who have worked for years researching and specializing to write books and articles are being over looked by the quicker source of information- the World Wide Web. Overall, Wikipedia is as good as any other cheat sheet. It summarizes, picks out key points and explains it as best as it can to people who will not go out to obtain the original copy. A book can contain more educated thoughts in 300 or 400 pages than a website can. Maybe it is not as fast but it is a safer bet. Wikipedia seems like a chat room, a place where people can collaborate and discuss opinions or thoughts on words and events. For now it should not be used as a credible source because (1) it may not be true and (2) it is far more educating to actually read a book by a philosopher who argues his or her point in order to be published.

Works Cited
“Anarchism.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2nd ed. 2002.
“Anarchism.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 18 Feb. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism>.
“Anarchism.” Wikipedia.com. 15 Feb. 2007.
Clark, John, P. “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Nomos XIX. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman, eds. New York: New York University Press, 1978. 3-23.
Giles, Jim. “Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head.” 28 March 2006.
Schiff, Stacy. “Know It All.” The New Yorker. 24 July 2006. 31 July 2006 .
Woodcock. George. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962. 9-60.