Michael Keaton in a Bikini is a Different Story

               Last Monday, I announced that I was doing a media experiment: I will attempt to see how long I can go without discovering who won the recent election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and then report the results. I’ve been asked some questions regarding this, and I figured I’d answer them here so everyone can see the answers. Plus, I didn’t really lay out the “rules” last time, so this might help.

              

                Q. Are you making a political statement?

                A. No. This is a statement on the immediacy of the news we receive. A lot of this honestly is born out of the Olympic coverage. We live in a time when where it was possible to watch any event as it happened. But NBC chose to put on events at odd times and “spoiled” live events. (Thus really, really destroying what is meant by the term “spoiler.”) Realistically, this should be the most covered news story in America, provided Kim Kardashian doesn’t get married again or tweets a picture of herself in a bikini.

                Q. Does this mean you’re not going to vote?

                A. No. I’ll be voting. That’s my right as an American. Who I’ll be voting for is a mystery, shrouded in a cloud and if you think you know who I’m voting for, you’re probably wrong. But I've not actually made up my mind about who I’m voting for, unless Kim Kardashian tweets another picture of herself in a bikini.

                Q. What are you trying to prove?

                A. I’m not trying to “prove” anything. I’m trying to take a look at the immediacy in which we want news, and the extent we’ll go to get it. The Presidential election should be a huge story… the biggest in America, and rightfully so. But plenty of non-football fans don’t know who won the Superbowl, and that’s pretty big. If you don’t care about actors then what use are the Oscars? But President? That’s the leader of us. You should know who he is. I’m going to see what I have to do to avoid learning his name for as long as possible.

                Q. What do you think you’ll have to do in order to avoid this?

                A. No Facebook, no radio, no newspapers, no online newspapers, changing my home screen, no phone, no notifications, no Twitter (which means less tweets of Kim Kardashian in a bikini), and basically a change in my lifestyle. Bad Shakespeare itself won’t be given live updates about the news while I’m busy not figuring this out.

                Q. You have a Twitter account?

                A. Yep. It’s not under Bad Shakespeare, and mostly it’s to follow comedians. But that has nothing to do with my point.

                Q. So what do you hope to gain from this?

                A. Hopefully, patience and a better understanding of the way media used to work. Back when media had to take time to reach everyone, there was time for “fact checkers” to work. People took time to figure out what was going on, and double checked… well, everything. They didn’t spew out the first thing on their lips because they wanted to be first, people’s lives be damned. Check out Michael Keaton in The Paper. Basically, that.

                Q. No, really, who are you voting for?

                A. Obviously, Kim Kardashian in a bikini.

Kittens with Katana Blades!

               I have some news to impart on everyone. It’s election season in America. To those of you that I have shocked, I apologize, I know not many of you have known that. (Does this font convey sarcasm? I hope it does.)

                In any regard, at the time of this posting we will be a little over a month away from the merciful end of Election Season. Whereas Football Season ends with a big show and Duck Season ends with some hilarious banter with wabbits and hunters, Election Season ends more name calling and accusations of fraud all around.

                But this is not a post about politics, no, this is a post about social media. You see, we live in a world where we are connected 24/7. If Mitt Romney pets an adorable kitten wielding katana blades or if Barack Obama kisses a baby that has a Hitler mustache, the world knows about it in about fifty seconds and we all start judging what it secretly means for the election. (i.e, Kittens love slashing things with knives! Or babies are bringing back the Hitler mustache!)

                I remember being in a bar four years ago when Barack Obama announced that “Smilin’ Joe Biden” was going to be his running mate. You could sign up for a text message to get the announcement as soon as it came out, so a bunch of people were looking down on their phones and reading what it said. Now this was midnight in a bar in Seattle, which means it was earlier in the morning elsewhere. And later it came out that the campaign announced it because the media released it.

                This got me thinking… do I need to know everything the minute it happened? Would I be worse off if I was sitting in a bar in Seattle, had a few beers with my friends, then got home and saw that Joe Biden was going to be Barack Obama’s running mate? Other than switching the conversation from how the Seahawks were doing that year to this, it changed nothing.

                Thus, I’m announcing the great Bad Shakespeare experiment of 2012. I’m going to see how long I can go without knowing who won the Presidential Election. I’m going to go to bed on Tuesday, November 6^th knowing that Barack Obama is the President of the United States. I’m going to wake up on Wednesday, November 7^th… well knowing that Barack Obama is President, but not knowing if he has a few months, or a few years left on his term.     

                Think about what that means. I will have to turn off notifications on my phone for one. I won’t be able to read any of my favorite news sites like Yahoo, Washington Post, or Cracked. (Ok… maybe the last one.) I won’t even get my morning comics! I won’t be able to listen to the radio (which may not be a bad thing. Like I want I want another fart joke from Elliot in the Morning or listening to Kane try to talk over everything he airs, lest someone forget the sound of his voice) or watch live television. Nothing with a commercial, anyway. (I know… so 20^th Century with the Tivos and the DVRs and whatnot.) The big thing, however, is that because of the way things are set up, I will not be able to update Bad Shakespeare properly until I find out, and the experiment is over.

                It’s not really a political statement. I’m intending this to be an interesting look at social media, and how we interact with it. I’ve chosen the Presidential Election because it is the biggest story in America… everyone should be covering it. With social media, really I should know who wins the election half a second after they call it.

And of course, I’ll be reporting my experiences and findings on a future edition of Bad Shakespeare.

I Answer Everything

             So, what do we take away from this week? I've thought a lot about how I'm going to wrap up what essentially has amounted to about 3500 words on a subject I'm passionate about. I appreciate you all taking the time to follow me in my passion of bringing awareness to what I feel is an important topic. Don't ban books. Don't ban ideas.  Fortunately, I’m going to sum up everything with just one word, and it is something that I would like you all to do, and something that I would like for you to consider from this point forward when it comes to censorship, book bans, the exchange of free ideas, and keeping an open mind.

              There is one day left in Banned Books Week. (Two if you read this early enough.) Which gives you plenty of time to do something for me. And something that really supports the written word, and helps strengthen the argument that no books should be banned.

               This is the main thing I want you to take away from this week.

Read.

This Post is So Good It's Illegal

                 So, now that we’ve explored the different angles of Banned Books Week (well… three. I only have a week and writing for this website is a part-part-part time gig) It’s time to think of action. So, what can you do to be a proper rabble-rouser and ensure free access for all and that banning books are a bad thing? Bad Shakespeare is here to help.

                -The most obvious, of course, is to not ban a book, or complain when you see someone reading a book. I mean, getting a book banned is a very deliberate act, you aren't going to do it accidentally. So I guess this falls under the universal guide for living, “Don’t ruin it for everyone else.”

                -Read a banned book. You may be disappointed to find that they aren’t as salacious as you would like. See the television show South Park for an excellent example of just how disappointing banned books can be when it comes to sex and violence.

                -Give someone a banned book. “The Hunger Games” is on that list. Chances are that you have given someone a banned book without even knowing it. But go deeper. Actively give someone a banned book and say, “hey, this is so good it’s illegal.” The second you make something illegal, it goes way up in demand, if my time at the Economics Department at George Mason has taught me anything.

                -Support your local library. I know, I know. Right now you don’t even have to leave your couch if you want to watch a movie and get a pizza. Google will provide you with a billion pages on the subject that you are looking for. Kindles, Nooks, and Ipads (sorry Kobo users) create a world where you can literally download any book, ever, and a lot of the classics are free. But libraries aren't just about books, they’re also about a sense of community of going to a place and learning something. These are the places that are under attack when you hear of a book being removed from the shelves for being “too awesome” as I've proven with my previous two statements.

                -Keep an open mind. This means completely open. This means not just supporting the crazy, wacky ideas that you love, but also supporting the crazy, wacky ideas that you hate. The First Amendment wasn't created to protect popular speech. Everyone can nod their head and get behind me when I say that Firefly may have been the best show ever created. But when someone says, Firefly sucks, that is the person that needs protection, because they are taking the least popular view. Our Founding Fathers (and noted Firefly fans) loved their free speech. In fact, that was the first thing they thought of when founding our country. Minds are like bear traps. The second they close, they become deadly.

                -Speak up against censorship. Earlier this year, a group called “One Million Moms” spoke out against one of my favorite comic books, because it dared to show a gay man as a superhero (THE HUMANITY!) Throwing aside that there aren't anywhere close to “One Million” of them, I wrote a rather nice piece about how I felt this changed nothing about the Green Lantern. I did this because I had a forum. I try to reach as many people as I can with this blog, and I will continue to do so until I can no longer type, or the machines cut off access to the internet before the Robot-Human war. That’s one way I will continue to speak against censorship of any kind. You find your way to do it. It can be as simple as attending the PTA meeting to talk those out of censorship. Just do something. Those Firefly Fans I mentioned that started this country did so because they took an active role.

                -Be respectful. I can talk a big game, but just be nice to each other. There’s no need to resort to name calling or hateful speech because someone disagrees. Remember, no one sets out to say, “I’m going to ban this book today.” They are banning something they are afraid of, and we have to respect that before we can talk to them, explain that not everyone will have the same reaction as them. It’s easier to see eye to eye with someone if you’re not trying to shout over them.  Bill and Ted said it best: “Be excellent to each other.”

This Post Contains Mild Cleavage

Yesterday, I spoke about how I felt that Banned Books week is about access to books—all books, be it a classic or a current book. All students should get the option and open access to read whatever they want, and we shouldn't create a shaming environment where they’re too scared to come talk to us about issues in a book. (Hmm. It took me 800 words to say that yesterday.)

\

                However, there’s another issue behind all of this: what about the books that are taught in the classroom? At this point we aren't talking about access. We’re talking about “you will read this for a grade.” How does the ever expanding world of free access and not banning ideas work in this case?

                I wish I had an answer. I personally hold true to what I just said and reiterate here: Students should have access to books, we should teach them not be afraid of discussing issues, and sheltering children rarely works. My personal favorite story is the R rating on the movie Bully because of “bad language… said by kids who couldn't see the movie now because it was rated R! But these are two different cases. In one, I’m picking up a book and saying, “I would like to read this.” In the other, I’m handing a book to a student and saying, “read this. Then you get a grade.”

                I can remember way back to high school (way back in “the day”) there were two books a teacher asked me to read that fell into the “controversial” category. “The Natural” (again because of a dreaded sex scene) and “Huckleberry Finn” (because no one understands what “satire” is.) No one really complained, and the teacher addressed what was controversial about them beforehand, and asked us to keep an open mind.

                And maybe that’s the answer. Look, there are some books I just won’t pick up unless someone tells me, and that includes the “Harry Potter” series. The point of getting an education is to expand your mind, and sometimes mind expanding is uncomfortable.  Most of the time I sit down to write these posts with a clear point in mind. Today I knew I wanted to discuss a sort of counterpoint to what I’d just written – free access – with the idea that sometimes it’s not a choice. I do feel that teachers, sometimes, have to make you read something that is controversial. I think teachers have to keep in mind the maturity level of the class, and what they can handle… but I feel that the point of an education is to see what is out there.

                And in reality, we live in a world where some people don’t want you to see a Harry Potter movie because one of the characters shows “mild cleavage.” (Hint: It’s not Ron.) Something will offend anyone, all the time. As educators, we have to ensure that we can defend using those materials. I already know the complaints I’m going to get when I want to use “The Fault in Our Stars” or “Matched.” But I also know that I can defend it. I know that anything controversial is outweighed by the wonderfulness of the stories themselves.

                Wow. I’m enjoying getting my opinions out there on Banned Books Week, but this is getting heavier than I thought. I might have to lighten the mood a bit.

The Fifty Shades of Grey Problem...

              “So, what about this book?” I’m inevitably asked whenever I point out that yes, I’m very much against censorship. “Why do you want children reading about this topic?”

                The book in question will contain themes that maybe someone doesn’t see as “moral” or “appropriate.” I’ll refer to it as the “Fifty Shades of Grey Problem”, after the smash hit that was based on altered fan fiction. (Although I may not be happy that fan fiction is riding so high in popularity, I have to face the facts that 1. It’s a published book, selling like crazy and 2. My Perfect Strangers fan fiction is going nowhere, so I may need to switch things up a bit.) But it’s a sexy book about sexy things that happen to sexy people. The audience is very much geared towards adults. But then again, when has “gearing” something to an audience ever guaranteed that only that specific audience will read it, millions of Harry Potter fans said.

                “Fifty Shades of Grey” has many, many, many problems beyond the amount of sex in it. Is it my choice? No. Do I really care if someone is reading it? No. When someone brings up the “Fifty Shades of Grey Problem” what they are saying is, “I find this content morally objectionable. There are a large group of people who agree that this content is morally objectionable. Why do you want teenagers to read it?” And they point to something like “Fifty Shades of Grey.” The thing is… no, I don’t want teenagers reading it.

                “Aha! We’ve caught you! You’re a filthy liar, Bad Shakespeare, and now we shall ban all the books except the ones we think are appropriate. Both books will be available in libraries tomorrow!” those people are now saying, possibly as lightning strikes behind them and they prepare the pyre to burn “The Chocolate War” or  “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” or “The Hunger Games” or “Matched” whilst hiding “Fifty Shades” under their mattresses.

                I want to be a good teacher, so I want students to read. The point of Banned Books Week is that all students have access to books. While I don’t think that “Fifty Shades of Grey” is an appropriate book for a teenager to read maybe another parent does. Maybe another parent or guardian is being asked about BDSM and uses that book as a light gateway into it. Maybe another student wants to read it as a project on how fan fiction and the new media allows for a greater expansion of writers into a new marketplace. The thing is it’s not my place to say what is appropriate for someone else to read. It is my place to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the access is there.

                In addition, I’d like to think that when I do have kids, or when I’m teaching and have students that they will be able to approach me with a dialogue on what they’ve just read, instead of just fighting it.

                Last Spring, I read an amazing book I’ve been meaning to write about in Bad Shakespeare for a very long time called “The Fault in Our Stars.” It’s about a girl who has cancer. She meets a guy in her support group. The two form a friendship, then fall in love (as two teenagers will do.) Of course, both have faced more mortality than most adults, one thing leads to another, and they have sex. People want this book banned because it contains… a sex scene between two teenagers. It’s on the banned book list because of this one scene which lasts less than four pages. (including the run up.) It also contains dealing with loss, dealing with death, dealing with anger (from death) embracing life… but we have to ban it because someone might read about two teenagers getting it on, and of course there’s no other way they’ll learn that.

                I try to think of what it would be like having a student read that book. It’s an amazing book, set in present day that features so many themes I can loop back to in a heartbeat. Even the title is a reference to Shakespeare, “The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves” from Julius Caesar. It’s an easily engaging book where the benefit outweighs any concerns I may have. And I’m not going to pretend that a student hasn’t heard about sex or won’t hear about sex at some point. Why would I scare them from it so much by declaring a book out of bounds that my kids won’t approach me about it, and learn something from it?

                Of course, this is focused on one extreme example. Ellen Hopkins is a frequent targetee of the Book Banners. She writes verse novels, form the point of view of teenagers, that cover topics like sex, eating disorders, steroids, drugs, poverty… things no student has to go through, right? (that’s sarcasm, kids.)

                I understand that those wanting these books banned are operating under their moral code. I can respect that. Just as they have the right to put the book down that contains objectionable material, or God forbid, get involved in their kids’ lives and find out what they are reading, I should have the right and the option to pick up a book and read it.

This Post is Almost Banned for Being Too Awesome

    It’s Banned Books Week.

    I’m going to let that marinate for a moment. It is the week set aside by the American Library Association where we talk about here, in America, that we shouldn’t be banning books.

    I’ve talked censorship and banning books in the past. I’m extremely against it. I’m against it because I think to the books I read when I was a kid. From the wacky to the adventure to the classic... I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t get a chance to read them. Particularly if someone told me I couldn’t read them for some arbitrary reason. (And yes, at the end of the day, banning words... banning ideas... is arbitrary.)

    And now we have an entire week set aside to bringing awareness to the fact that books are still banned in America. They’re banned for ideas. They’re banned for words. They’re banned because they represent a history we wish we didn’t have. They’re banned because people don’t want to admit that teenagers might be going through an issue. They’re banned for not living up to the “morals” of a way too vocal minority that’s totally okay pushing their morals on everyone else, but would flip out if anyone attempts to push their morals on them.

    I don’t like being told I can’t do something for an arbitrary reason or to give the warm fuzzies to a group that thinks they have to be the national “tsk tskers”. (Everyone knows that the “tsk tsk” position was abolished when Benjamin Franklin decided that we should just all “be cool, everyone.”)

    Why do we fear ideas so much? Why do we fear that someone might learn something or see a character in a book with a problem and be able to relate? Why do we fear a word? That is what Banned Books Week is about. It’s about looking at these questions, and bringing them to the forefront. It’s about realizing that this still happens in the 21st century. It’s about a free access of ideas.

    Fight the man. Read a book.