Wallace: Authority and American Usage

I really enjoyed reading David Foster Wallace’s writing—despite the frequent use of his favorite word SNOOT.  He writes with a sarcastic, superior tone (which he admits to having), making it enjoyable to read his opinions.  I could see how some people would not enjoy him, but I, personally, like his dry humor.  Wallace writes in a way that makes it feel like you’re having a conversation with him, like you’re listening to him talk, rather than reading an essay.  His use of footnotes adds even more of his own voice and humor to his work.  One of my favorite footnotes is in the beginning of his essay after his use of the phrase “historical context.”  He says in his footnote, “Sorry about this phrase; I hate this phrase too… I actually tried ‘lexico-temporal backdrop’ in one of the middle drafts, which I think you’ll agree is not preferable” (623).   Wallace pokes fun at himself and his love of words, explaining that his love began when he was young.  Aside from entertaining footnotes, Wallace’s main topic is questioning the meaning of words and rules of grammar.  He questions the definitions in the many dictionaries and wonders why we believe in them.  I’ve contemplated this same thing on many occasions when I’ve had nothing else better to do.  Who had the time to define all of these words, and what makes them correct?  Why should we believe what they think a word means?  These questions can never really be answered, and part of this is because the English language is constantly evolving.   He makes an interesting point saying common words like “clever, fun, banter, and prestigious entered English as what usage authorities considered errors or egregious slang” (627).  But look how these words now are in our dictionaries and are acceptable by society and English teachers everywhere.  I never realized how interesting lexicology was, and how enjoyable an essay in a reading and writing could be.

Foucault and the Panopticon

I began reading Foucault’s passage on Panopticism and quickly realized that I had no idea what I was reading.  I was reminded, however, of George Orwell’s 1984, by the description of a highly surveillanced society.  This particular society from the reading was checked up on every day and given tasks to carry out.  I quickly gave up on this section and moved to the section on the Panopticon.  This topic was incredibly interesting to me, and left me wondering why all jails aren’t Panopticons today.  The idea is to have inmates—whether thieves, madmen, murderers, or any other kind of crazed human—fearing authority.  They aren’t locked up in dark cells, or behind heavy bars.  They stay in a circular building with light shining through their rooms.  In the center of the building is a large tower where the authority figure stays.  The prisoners cannot see into the tower from the help of Venetian blinds and zig zag openings that hide shadows and beams of light.  They never know if they are being watched or not so it always keeps them on their toes.  Foucault says “invisibility is a guarantee of order” (287) and uses other examples besides a prison to illustrate this idea.  He talks about if you place schoolchildren in an environment where they know they’re being watched, there is less of a likelihood for cheating and talking.  Also, in a work environment, workers would have less distractions and a quicker rate of work if they knew they were constantly being watched.  I think the idea of the Panopticon is ingenious, and its functioning can be summarized in this quote: “The more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed.“ (289).

My Media Diet

I had high expectations for Wednesday, January, 12, 2011.  I have no classes, so I had plans to clean and organize my room, read up on some potential business clubs to join, stay on top of my class readings, and maybe even spend time catching up with some friends.  But, unfortunately, my love for accomplished days was overshadowed by a greater love of mine.. sleep. I woke up at 12:30 in the afternoon, only because I was awoken by my phone repeatedly ringing. 
After realizing my plans of going to the 11:45 TurboKick class were ruined, I got up and checked my email.  Nothing too exciting there, so then I move to the always thrilling Facebook.  Once I've browsed through the news feed, I check my Twitter quickly.
But today was out of the ordinary because I recieved a call from my future roommate saying that she's ready to sign her lease for our apartment.  After quickly panicking because I was in no shape to leave my bedroom, evidenced by my unkempt hair and pajamas, I began to get ready.  I ventured onto Pandora.com and began listening to my favorite music station and putting my appearance back together.
And so the day continues, from the leasing office, to the Reitz for lunch, and then back to my dorm.
I turn on the TV to my favorite station, HGTV, and watch some Design Inc., which happens to be my favorite show, only trumped by Keeping up with the Kardashians on E!.  I consider watching these shows as my "Me" time, that I hold near and dear to my heart.  Sadly, this "Me" time must end, so I delve into my microeconomics textbook before I'm subject to watching a painful 50 minute lecture.  Then I move to a 50 minute Statistics lecture.
My day winds down with Bible study at a friend's house.  We all read and discuss the Bible along with a commentary/study guide on the book of James. 
Once I'm back in my dorm, I check my email again where I read the reminder for this post I'm currently writing.  Writing is not one of my favorite things to do, so I checked Facebook before as a way of stalling.
Hopefully later tonight I'll have time to watch a movie; maybe Breakfast at Tiffany's or The Wedding Planner.
Overall, I wouldn't say I have diet rich in "media," considering I don't read the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times in one day like Tyler Cowen does.  But compared to Tyler Cowen's media diet, I suppose everyone is malnourished.