TOW #16 "The Blind Side" IRB 2

We have now reached the final TOW post of the 1st semester of my junior year. Kinda sad, isn't it?  Anyway, I have finished The Blind Side.  And, to get a comparison, I also watched the movie, which was as good as I remember.  First off, The Blind Side was written like a fiction book, making it very easy to read, being the great fiction reader I am.  The story of Oher was written as if the author, Michael Lewis, had made up the character of Michael Oher.  That makes me question some things about the story.  First off, although I’m sure Michael Oher was a very good person, he was human.  It seemed like the only aggression Oher had was on the football field.  But, did he have any other problems?  I also felt like they brushed over Oher’s acclimation, other than his problems with school.  In the movies, however, I could see the almost shyness and awkwardness from Quinton Aaron, the actor who played Michael Oher in the movie.  He seemed overwhelmed by the kindness of the Tuohy family. 

One part I really liked was the analysis of the “quarterback” and how Oher revolutionized the importance of the offensive line on the left side.  The explanation was that since most quarterbacks are right handed, their backs are turned against the left side.  If a defensive player broke through the left side of the line, then the quarterback would never see the person coming.  This “blind side” became important to block after Oher began playing, since Oher was not only huge, but fast. This idea of the protectiveness of Oher, both on the field and off, was worked extremely well into both the movie and the book.  Even though I don’t fully enjoy sports, this book of success against the odds really was a great read.

TOW # 15 "Caro Emerald" Article Post

As the take home essay looms closer, I am putting some final touches on the paper.  But, I still feel as if it could be more like a review and less like a strict, slightly boring essay.  To get more of the feel of a review, I went to the Guardian, where I read up on one of my favorite singers of all time, the Dutch singer Caro Emerald and her preformance at the Royal Festival Hall in London.  You will remember, last time, I read an article about Evanescence.   There, I determined that diction in a review is key.  I saw this repeated in the Emerald reivew, with the writer Caroline Sullivan writing "the salsa-hop My 2 Cents was even written about the floppy-fringed guitarist, apparently – she's [Caro Emerald's] too cracking a singer to fade into the background."  While reading these words, mainly "crackling" and "floppy-fringed", I begin to form a picture about Miss Emerald's preformance.  I imagine the crisp insturments, the dynamic singing of Miss Emerald as her long-haired guitarist jams tothe song about himself.  These descriptions make me both feel like I was there and make me want to listen to her on a day to day basis (let's pretend I don't already.)  For my Gotham review, I have to use flowery language to describe something.  Saying something is good does not cut it.  I need to say "dynamic", "intreging", or "ground-shattering". 

The next thing I noticed was the comparisons used in the article.  Sullivan compared Caro Emerald's preformance and songs to many things, saying "Emerald is perhaps the most easily digested of the retro-jazz/soul vocalists that have followed in Amy Winehouse's wake".  By comparing a relatively unknown singer to a widely known and loved preformer, the audience gets a better feling for the argument Sullivna is trying to make.  In mine, I would probably benefit from comparing Gotham to other famous forms of Batman, like the "Dark Night" franchise or the animated TV series.  Since Gotham is darker, I think running parallels to the Dark Night would greatly benefit my argument.  With these things in mind, I retire to finish my essay.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/15/caro-emerald-review