Career Essay Sport Management Essays - Sport Management,

Career Essay Sport Management Career Essay Sport Management For the longest time I could not decide on a major and a career to study throughout college. When I came to Georgia Southern University I discovered that they had a major that was very interesting to me. Sport Management id the ideal major for my interest and me. Since I love sports I figured that this would be the career for me. A degree in Sport Management helps to prepare for success in sport related occupations. The job market varies in the field of sport management. Some occupational opportunities include: athletic trainer, coach, sports official, Sports agent, camp director, sporting goods sales/dealer, pro scout, athletic director, sport promoter. The list can go on of the opportunities in this career. Mostly anything sport related in today's business world is included also. The nature of a person in a sport management career is based solely around sports. Depending on what occupation you decide to pursue the work and conditions will differ. Some typical activities are, plan and direct athletic events, represent professional athletes, plan and direct the training of the team players, evaluate skills and potential of players, or work extensively with players, coaches, officials, managers etc. The work condition can vary with different jobs or tasks. A scout will be called on to travel about 3/4 of the time. Athletic directors handle the athletics of their prospective schools along with coaches. A sports agent working conditions can involve a lot of long hours and extended pressure. Some employment settings are colleges/universities, camps, sporting goods stores, management firms, professional teams, fitness centers and the media. The job outlook for most careers in Sport Management is fair to good. Sport Management is one of the fastest growing fields of study in the country. With that there will lots of job openings and new businesses starting. Some jobs in this field are limited. For instance, anything dealing with professional teams is limited due to the number of sports teams. Successes in the teams help with salary and benefits for the employees. Most jobs in the sport management field are setup to where an employee must work his or her way up the ladder. For example, the job may ask the employee to assist in work and the salaries are not as high. In some jobs such as being a general manager of a professional team the job is to an extent being in the right place at the right time. Careers in sport management require some necessary in order to be successful. Being able to communicate effectively is a very important skill in this career. Giving Speeches is one part of communication that is important. Decision Making, Organizing, Leading/Coordinating and being able to motivate others is also critical in the career. Qualifications for most jobs require a bachelor's degree, sport experience and management training. Creative Writing

First Stand Essays - Homelessness, Humanitarian Aid, Socioeconomics

First Stand Essays - Homelessness, Humanitarian Aid, Socioeconomics First Stand Many issues plague the world today. Questions arrive about how people should live, who should control the most power, and many other questions that Americans have spent all their lives trying to answer. This isn?t an essay where I try to answer all those questions, but how I stand on certain issues like war, wealth, social status, education and finally technology. All those issues get even larger where even more questions arise. Those 3 sections are Political, Social, and Economical. War covers many issues of wars being prevented and how wars should be dealt with. Wealth is all about people who earn the money and people who just inherit it while social status is all about how people live their lives at different ranks. Education, everyone needs it to get a halfway descent life today. Technology will be the most important in the future because it could be the answer to most of our problems. The single word that most Americans know and sometimes fear is WAR. It hurts, maims, and kills millions of Americans. And why are wars started? Because some power hungry dictator wants more space, money or natural recourses. I think that a lot of the wars that we have had in countries could have been prevented. Especially with all the new technology we have today. Back when it was George Washington leading his troops there probably wasn?t anything that could have stopped that. I think most of the violence in wars can be prevented by just sitting down and looking at all the problems and what the different countries want. If two sides are at war I think it is the United States? responsibility to get between those two sides and stop them from going to war. If the two sides are stronger than the U.S then the U.S should stand down. Then and ONLY then. Some people say that God made us a violent species but I don?t believe that. If God made man a violent species, then how could we h! ave achieved peace and prevented many wars? How could we join in allegiances with our neighbors? If we could just set aside all the things that make us different, we could stop all the violence at once. The violence over the seas and the violence on the streets. Every country is always either preparing for war, having a war, or recovering for war. Some people that analyze wars say that war is a way of keeping the population down. I think this is a pretty dumb idea but it does have its good sides. Just like any other topic War has it?s ups and downs. Some people say that this next topic makes the world go ?round. Money, and the distribution of wealth. Most people in the U.S are middle class, and in the world most are lower class like in countries in Bosnia and Serbia where everyone is suffering. However a lot of people that just inherit all the gold and riches don?t do anything whatsoever to earn the money. Princess Diana for instance, she came from a poor family and just happened to get lucky that prince Charles liked her. Since some people are a lot better off than others I think that the people with more money should be taxed more heavily than the people with out a lot of money. If everyone is taxed the same, then the people with a lot of money will still live great but the people with no money are going to go even lower in the money status classes. A lot of the people that live in big industrial cities like San Francisco say that all the homeless people lying around in the parks and other places are very inconvenient.! It makes the city look trashier than it really is. People from out of state look at these great looking cities on postcards and want to go there but then once they are there they look around and see homelessness and trash littering the ground. I think that the homeless are on the street because they gambled their lives away. The government shouldn?t be giving them any extra tax dollars just for being homeless, they should

Public Argument Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Public Argument - Essay Example On the other hand Celie perseveres mistreatment, first by her step father, Fonso and later Albert. The theme of how the oppressed can redeem themselves through unity is well depicted in the film. This is shown when Celie and Sophia put away their differences and become fast friends. Celie goes to an extent of nursing Sophia’s wounds when she is arrested. In addition, this is a feminist movie. It is about a lady finding out who she really is and the value she has and will always have. In the south, Celie endured the patriarchal culture which during her search for truth, she realizes is abusive to a woman. At the beginning, she thought that wife battering is a normal thing. That is why she even advises Harpo to regularly beat Sophia. She even doesn’t deny it when Sophia questions her about it. She later learns that women are equal to men in virtually everything, including knowledge, power and finance, when she escapes from Albert after meeting Shug. When she returns in Ge orgia, at the end of the film, she is a very independent not a submissive and weak lady she used to be. Celie being one of the major female characters in the film, she has a variety of character traits that make the play more appealing and make expression of the themes easy. The ability to love unconditionally, to endure and strength are the three major attributes that make up Celie’s personality. ... This abuse don’t change her from being gentle and caring In various instances in the film Celie considers others first before she considers herself. This is an act of loving others more that she ever loves herself. She takes abuse from Fonso in order to save Nettie and her mother from his cruelty. When she realizes that Nettie might be forced to marry Albert, she marries him to protect her from that. In addition she allows Nettie to move away from the farm, knowing very well that she is the only family and friend she has ever had. This is because she believes that this would protect Nettie from him. In spite of all the difficult circumstances that Celie finds herself in, she survives due to her endurance. She is not only able to put up with uncertainty of Shug’s love, but also to withstand sexual abuse of Fonso, poverty, prejudice, miscarriages, Albert’s cruelty, and loss of Nettie. She is known to love unconditionally. She loves Shug even before meeting her and she is very happy when she realizes that Shug loves her back. Even if Shug doesn’t always treat hers well, she still loves her. When Shug goes away, she decorates a house for her and paints it with purple color and preserves it in hope that she will once return. She also has steadfast love for Sofia. When she is arrested, Celie helps in caring for her wounds, visits her often and encourage her to make her feel better (Klein 91). The movie had a great impact in my life. First of all it provided me with the insight into how life was in the south then, where women were oppressed, men were very abusive and a society that was very judgmental. Although it is an interesting film, it is very emotional film. The various mistreatments that the various female characters go through in the film drove me into

Main Report Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Main Report - Essay Example The present study also makes SWOT analysis of the topic under study keeping in view cultural factors and global phenomenon within which the industry observes significant boost during the last century. The future trends and dimensions of the industry have also come in the fold of present study. The contemporary world is the world of technological advancement and hi-tech industrialization. The invention of computer sciences, information technology, internet and mobile phones have revolutionised the world at large. The businesses in the contemporary era revolve round technological advancements and industrial expertise. It is therefore, our business plan is also related to the modern technology i.e. mobile phone PDAs. PDA refers to the personal digital assistant, which interlinks telephone, internet, fax and computers with networking characteristics. "A typical PDA can function as a cellular phone, fax sender, Web browser and personal organizer. Unlike portable computers, most PDAs began as pen-based, using a stylus rather than a keyboard for input.† (Quoted in webopedia.com/TERM/P/PDA.html) Before entering into a business, it is an essential matter to have a comprehensive knowledge and information regarding the particular field where one is going to exercise his abilities on the one hand and allocate his energies and concentration on the other. Gates declares knowledge and information a reason, which distinguish an enterprise from its competitors and rivals. â€Å"The most meaningful way to differentiate your company from your competitor, the best way to put distance between you and the crowd, is to do an outstanding job with information. How you gather, manage, and use information will determine whether you win or loose.† (Gates, 1999 p 1). Strategy is an inevitable part of every corporate firm’s management plan on which all its functioning stands. All the organizations either large or small devise methods and apply techniques

Applied Science Personal Statement Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Applied Science - Personal Statement Example In my estimation, A scientist trained in the formal disciplines of Physics or Chemistry, engaged in academic activity can not claim superiority over a Scientific Man who by using his gifted faculties is able to translate his informal knowledge of science in to products of common use which actually are the raison-de-etre of science. I would like to pose a question that, what is the reason that prompts us to engage ourselves in the quest to understand what exists around us My answer is to seek benefit for humanity. A quest for knowledge cannot be and should not be an end in itself but should be aimed and directed at transmitting benefits to the people. The allegation that ideas conceived by some 'scientists' earlier are picked up by someone not formally trained in Scientific Disciplines are made in to products which can be used by ordinary people requires a response. I would like to argue that nothing can be termed as purely original, human mind has been thinking and dreaming since eons. We are specie of dreamers; God has granted us this unique ability, rather a superior ability among other animals. If a scientist thinks of a theory, I am sure someone not belonging to the select group, claiming monopoly over science, must have dreamt the dream sitting by the fire, after a tiring hunt. It is the dream which urges the creativity and the urge for quest. The dream of flying if ever it becomes a reality will be result of a dream rather then scientists arguing over polemics. Having said that I would now relate briefly how the dream of electric lighting became a reality and contrary to the claim of being branded unscientific, how it was endorsed by the scientific community and lauded by the public. It was as early as 1874 that my electric device was appreciated by Mr. George Barker at Franklin Institute. In the year 1878 it was none other then Mr. George Barker an eminent scientist, Professor of Physics at University of Pennsylvania, Associate Editor of American Journal of Science, member of NAS and later the President of AAAS, with whom I discussed the idea of electric lighting, on a trip to Wyoming to observe a solar eclipse, like other scientists. As it is common knowledge that Mr. Barker has impeccable credentials as a scientist, he appreciated my idea and arranged my visit to see the arc light bulb built by Messer Moses Farmer and William Wallace in Connecticut. Mr. Barker showed his sagacity while praising my work in the Washington meeting of NAS held in April 1878. In that meeting I demonstrated phonograph which was appreciated greatly by the audience as a great product of science. The same year I was invited to join AAAS and I joined. The prestigious organization theref ore recognized the scientific merit of my work. I would also like to further strengthen my scientific credentials in the eyes of those who take a negative view of my work, by stating that Mr. Upton a 'trained' scientist by the standards so jealously being guarded, is a close associate and assists my work. The very fact that he, a man of science is working with me demonstrates that what I do is nothing but Science. It has also been alleged that I do not adhere to the accepted norms of scientific scholarship. The particular allegation that I have in mind is the reference made to my reporting the scientific findings that I make, to the newspapers, which the public reads. My assertion is that;

Television and Cinema in Post Modern Society

Television and Cinema in Post Modern Society Television mocking its big brother Cinema? Through parody is television mocking its big brother Cinema or is simply feeding the post-modern society? Artistic achievement has, in most societies, usually seen as one of the highest goals for its citizens with artists held in highest esteem in society. The Classical civilizations of Rome and Ancient Greece are rightly regarded as artistic highlights of world civilizations due to the unprecedented status given to artists of all trades: poets, painters, bards, actors, sculptors and musicians. This respect for excellence in the arts still exists today However modern art is unfortunately too often derided as a thing of paltry significance as compared to the great artists of the past. FPeriods of high accomplishment such as Ancient Greece or the Renaissance are rightly regarded as containing such artists whose skill and mastery of their respective disciplines may rarely be emulated, if ever. However, is that a reason for giving up on modern artistic output? After all, the twentieth century was that of Pollock, Rockwell and Hockney. But lest we forget, in the annals of history, it is doubtful that the past 100 years will be remembered for their contribution to age-old art forms such as painting or sculpture. Instead, it seems likely and indeed fair that the 20th century will be remembered for the creation, popularization and investigation of the audio-visual arts of cinema and television. From the first shots of the train moving out of Carpentras station, cinema has moved the hearts and minds of millions. The 20th century was witness to the greatest technological advancements in human history and artistic output followed suit. After the silent pictures of the 1900s first captures audiences to the first black-and-white talkies, cinematic progress could never be checked. From success to success, people round the world would be enchanted by Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, awed by Harryhausen’s special effects, moved by Gone With The Wind and horrified by Birth Of A Nation. Every decade would bring an advancement in cinematic output, something which would revolutionize the industry once again and bring new generations into cinemas. These constant progressions in cinema would take place at a far faster rate than in other arts due to several important factors. First of all, the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th-century had sent technological development across the world into a tail-spin which impacted cinema very positively by providing studios with a constant stream of new machinery, effects possibilities. The knock-on effect from this was of course that a steady stream of technicians would be trained and employed by the great studios. We will be analyzing the hiring and firing practices of the studio moguls as compared to the lifelong television employees further on in this dissertation. Another great reason for the appeal of cinema would be the characters contained within it. The glamour of Hollywood until the 1940s would make audiences dream across five continents up to the present day. The gritty reality of much of today’s cinematic output had not even been imagined and movies were used to make people dream of a greater life. We will use this opportunity to further analyze the setting-up of the movie studios, the Jewish origins of most of the moguls and the taste of Americana they injected into their projects later on. Furthermore, we will draw up a detailed comparison between the early days of both film and television, analyzing which tactics worked better in the battles for a limited audience. Even horrifying world events such as World War II would provide the film industry with invigoration as Hollywood and the pre-war German film studios would engage in a rivalry, the like of which has rarely been seen in the arts. With the Hollywood ban on exporting American films to the Third Reich, the motivation for German film-makers was extraordinary and names such as Murnau and Lang emerged as major players on the world cinema scene. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them fled Germany during or after the war to seek new lives in Hollywood. Many failed but some met with varying measures of success, the greatest legacy of this time possibly contained in Fritz Lang’s masterpiece Metropolis, the ominous skyline filled with skyscrapers working as a tribute to Lang’s first impressions of seeing New York harbour from far out at sea. However, even from that darkest period of human history has emerged some of the most shocking and lasting pieces of film. The films shot by the Allied forces of the Nazi concentration camps have proved perhaps the most important factor of documentary cinema. Beyond the artistry, beyond the emotional impact, cinema has provided humankind with an unlimited opportunity to document its own history, both good and bad. An opportunity television executives would notice and pick up on. Even today, the claims made by CNN and BBC such as ‘We are there as the news happens’ stem from the passion for news-stories instilled in people during the World War when small news flashes shown as previews before films in movie theatres were the only pictures civilians at home had of the war outside of newspapers. These propagandistic items were of course good for morale and television would soon enter into the fray, edging cinema out to take a monopoly over showing news programs. We must also consider another important area of research. The ‘parodying’ between television and cinema is a term of some ambiguity. Within this dissertation, we will also try and highlight the inherent differences between the terms of parody and emulation. As per rivalry in any kind of industry, some actions that may seem to be a parody of existing practices are in fact no more than emulation, a mere attempt to capitalize on a rival’s success. The concept of parody on the other hand is a very subtle one. Although television and cinema are by definition filled with some of the most acerbic minds in the world, minds quite ripe to create parody, it is somewhat naà ¯ve to think that these people would be allowed to impact decisions on scheduling and programme production. Only those at the summit of their popularity would be allowed their own shows, let alone given creative control of their shows. A recent example of this happening in Britain would be So Graham Norton. However, even these shows often fail as can be demonstrated as can be seen through the antics of stars such as Liza Minnelli, John McEnroe or Anna Nicole Smith. Thus, we can observe that the concept of pure parody being used by cinema and television for its own sake is somewhat mortifying, given the massive financial risks such an undertaking would incur. However, if parody was created to feed the viewing desires of a post-modern audience, then such an action becomes more realistic. To study this, we shall take an in-depth look at the nature of today’s post-modern audience and their viewing habits. In this dissertation, we will be looking in more depth at the first fledgling footsteps of both these art forms, the characters that helped build them up to their global statuses as well as two important periods in their history. The 50s and 60s where cinema and television were in direct competition through the slow transition period of the 70s and 80s into the modern-day scenario of co-operation. With this journey through time, we will be looking at trends pioneered by each of them and looking at any sharing or borrowing of ideas between the two mediums, we shall observe their long and drawn-out rivalry as well as the numerous examples of co-operation between them. The Glamour Years or the faint ridicule of cinema’s golden age If 90% of leadership is showing up, then we can hardly be surprised at the manner in which the men who would become studio moguls quickly rose to the top of this brand new industry. The founders of Paramount, RKO, MGM, Fox and Warner Bros. were for the vast majority immigrants or children of immigrants who had come to America either to seek their fortune or who had grown up with the image of America as this place of opportunity. In the first two decades of the 20th century, these views were far truer than they are now but to attain what one desired when the bar was so high, a lot of hard work would have to be carried out over many years. Thankfully, hard work was what these men’s families had been built on. Possessing this instinct along with a fine sense for business acumen, which some would sarcastically claim was due to their Jewish nature, Mayer, Goldwyn and the others would take the American cinematic market by storm. Before continuing, let us dispel any lingering images of these men helping each other out on their way to success. They entered a ruthless line of business where they were in direct competition and they tried everything to ruin each other, from slandering each other in the popular press to stealing actors and actresses. However, more united them than the moguls would have cared to admit. Since most of them had risen from humble beginnings, their visions of America were an embodiment of the American Dream that had influenced the migration of countless thousands from their home countries. The MGM studio, for example, would become synonymous with Technicolor musicals such as The Wizard of Oz portraying the world as a happy, bright place where everyone lived contently. The Warners would take a more active interest in social commentary but even their early efforts never went too far in criticizing a society that had offered them so much. Across the studio divide, the concepts of method acting had never even been considered and the goal of cinema was to make their actors and actresses look glamorous while portraying a style of life that would make every American dream in wonder. Why this image can be considered with a slight tint of ridicule is its existence in the middle of such troubled times. In the space of thirty years, America would fight in the two bloodiest conflicts in human history yet still, the studios churned out glossy movies, filled with beautiful dames and jolly banter. But here, once again, we strike a familiar obstacle, one that both film and television have met too many times. Too often in criticism about their history, studios or television networks are blamed for the programmes they carry or films they produce. Unfortunately, whilst they cannot be absolved of all blame, the relationship between social trends and popular entertainment is an obvious one. At a time in its history when America was fighting wars, undergoing a recession as well as Prohibition, the last thing American audiences wanted was to be served up with depressing fare that they could identify with. If another example of this is needed, look at what kind of cinema was popularized in the 50s. After the war, the film noir came of age and rose to ascendancy when American society was doing well and people felt good about themselves. A crucial fact that those who are all too quick to lay blame at the feet of the studios is that films and television programs will only be made if their creators feel they will be well-received by the general public. Television’s first faltering footsteps The intertwining and complex relationship between cinema and television cannot only be analyzed from the perspectives of programme similarity and audience sharing. Those who decided on what programmes should be commissioned, those who researched audiences to determine what kind of target audiences should be tapped, those who decided on what type of scheduling to choose at any given time of day, these television executives, producers and network directors would be the ones that would outline how television would evolve from one year to the next. As has been explained, television channels found themselves confronted with a very difficult challenge. Whereas film studios had been opened in great pomp and ceremony with the budgets of their moguls behind them thus allowing them to find their feet and carve their respective identities without a vast amount of competitive pressure placed upon them. Television did not benefit from such an auspicious start. The challenge that faced channels was to find their own identities and thus capture individual audience shares whilst fighting an uphill struggle to dislodge cinema from its spot atop the entertainment mountain. To take this would kind a special kind of organization. How could television not only catch up to cinema but also surpass it in popularity? Well, television started out with two significant advantages. Firstly, that of money. The far larger amount of broadcasting time inherent to television made it a much more viable target for financial gain than cinema which could only show any adverts to limited audiences. The commercial prospects of television soon became clear and this links us neatly with its second trump card. Throughout the 50s, television’s popularity exploded and families were rushing to buy them. The reason this had not occurred during the 1940s was that regulations concerning this new kind of entertainment were still getting sorted out and freed of problems. At the end of the 40s, television was still a luxury and commissions for TV channels had only really affected the East and West Coasts. However, in the 50s, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) decided to make the acquisition of such a commission far easier and soon, channels began appearing across the States, often broadcasting to a small area but carrying only limited-interest stories for its local people. Thus, television watching became a far more personal affair. As far as programme content, a specific identity for television developed slowly through the 50s with the launching of successful sitcoms such as I Love Lucy which carried high audience shares across the country. However, we can distinguish here the first example of a parody between two entertainment methods. Shows that were once popular on radio were being copied to television, with I Love Lucy a prime example of this. (Wikipedia, 2005) illustrates the identity-forming process of television by explaining how local television stations helped shape this process. Moving on from   merely showing advertisements for local companies, they began showing small serials and talk shows, some of which became national phenomenons. The local nature of this kind of television would eventually mostly fade away by the 70s but the damage done to cinema was irreparable. Television had entered the hearts and minds of successive American generations and it was here to stay. Here, we can draw a major comparison between cinema and television potentially parodying it. Merely watching a few episodes of these old-school sitcoms, we cannot help but be struck at the similarity of tone to the pre-war Hollywood days. It is necessary to diverge briefly to explain the state of mind of 1950s America. Before the war, the USA had undergone a massive recession caused by the Wall Street Crash and thus, it had fallen to the entertainment industry to help people forget their woes. The film industry had done this, as shown above, but the changes it had caused had not died away. Although World War II had caused the death of many a gallant young man, it had lifted the USA into a very buoyant mindset. With the European powers needing a decade more to recover from the conflict, with Japan’s military and economic potential temporarily annihilated, with China still reeling from its murderous invasion, the Soviet Union remained the only true challenge to America’s supremacy. But the Cold War had not yet begun in earnest and in the late 40s and early 50s, the USA saw itself as the world’s only true superpower. The much denigrated Eisenhower presidency kept the economy stable through a tricky balancing act and for most of America, life was good. The Americana dream adapted to no longer be a picture of great wealth but of blissful happiness. The family unit of 2.4 children, living in the comfortable and safe suburban districts with a white picket fence around a big house, was a dream that many wished to achieve and television could reflect that. Shows such as I Love Lucy portrayed a heavenly, glossy picture of American society which is ultimately matched nowhere in entertainment except among the idyllic American communities shown in early studio films. The Warners, Mayer and the others had all built up their studios from the ground up thanks to their own hard work. They were living proof of the possibilities America offered and thus showed this in their films. Television in the 50s emulated this entirely. The era was different, the clothing more modern but the ensemble feeling remained the same. This was not merely borne out in television sitcoms but also in adverts. Sitcoms would be interrupted for commercial upon commercial selling the latest washing-machine, vacuum-cleaner or kitchen appliance without which the dutiful housewife could not live. It is oddly ironic that many of today’s stereotypes about the 50s are a product of this kind of television. It needs to be remembered, However, that this often derided type of family life where the children skipped to school, rosy-cheeked and clutching an apple, while the father gave his loving wife a demure kiss on the cheek before heading to the office in his beautiful Chevrolet is not merely a myth. Around the suburbs of New York, San Francisco and the like, many families not only lived this kind of life but their children and grandchildren still do today. However, the way in which television chose to reflect this society in a utopian sense, glossing over any unpleasantness, was a definite rehashing of the technique used by the film studios of Hollywood twenty years previously. The adaptation of the two mediums and their direct battle for audience shares As television successfully found its feet and began a posing direct threat to cinema, studios were forced to change. After all, no other new form of entertainment had entered general society since the arrival of cinema before television and thus, cinema would have to fight to keep its audiences. A couple of things could be seen as certain before these changes would proceed. Firstly, cinema would never rival television for mass popularity and market potential due to the overwhelming availability of television and its presence in an increasing number of households across America. Secondly, one of television’s worrying tendencies was to garner a lot of advertising money from a wide swathe of big American companies. Electrical appliances, cars, clothes, foodstuffs and drinks were all sold on television during commercial breaks, a fact that cinema could not copy. However, studio executives soon found ways round this problem, ways in which although adverts could not be shown during the movie, surreptitious showing of products could have a similar effect. Product placement was born. Admittedly, in a society which with every passing year produces more and wastes more, it seems that studios have become less adept at making product placement seem natural rather than obvious. The 007 series had always been a treasure trove for companies wishing to place their symbols on James Bond’s latest gadget. With the arrival of Pierce Brosnan into the role However, any shred of subtlety vanished to be replaced with highly obvious use of products. For example, Brosnan’s type of car had always been one of the highlights of the film. In Die Another Day, the presence of the painfully named Aston Martin ‘Vanish’ only served as a sales pitch for the Vanquish. Such utterly shameless product placement did reach a crescendo in 2004 where the amount of plugging for Sony and Converse in I, Robot would have made Isaac Asimov turn in his grave. However, such behaviour can shed some light onto the type of post-modern audience that we are evolving in. Those detractors who claim that post-modernism is merely the natural by-product of such a senselessly wasteful society whose mechanisms result in the attempted alienation of anyone showing a shred of individuality. Whether this is true or not is difficult to ascertain but what is lamentable is that the artistic integrity which has existed since Aristotle is being compromised in cinema out of the desire to keep up with television. Thankfully, the presence of adverts in television, even if sometimes the length of advert breaks can be infuriating has meant this has not happened in television’s case. If we evolve in a post-modernist society, then these differing methods of merely pandering to our consumer’s instincts could seem to be a by-product of intense competition between two forms of popular entertainment. Unfortunately, cinema’s rapid changes would lead to renewed controversy over its spectatorship and its impact thereupon as explained by Lynn Spigel. The concept of spectatorship in itself is a fascinating one, not just within the framework of this dissertation, but also within the field of cinema and television research. The bearings that society can have upon an audience’s watching habits are a crucial fact to understanding how individuals, larger target groups or entire demographics will react to any kind of program. (Spigel, 1998) places the birth of the issue of spectatorship in the 70s as film studies began increasing in popularity. This rise in popularity and its link to audience research are vital as we can use them to comprehend not just how an audience would react to a pioneering film or series in either cinema or television but also how it would react to a parody or any kind of wholesale copying of a popular film or series by another medium of entertainment. The issues raised by Spigel are ones, she claims, whose roots lie back in the ideals of Marx and Lacan. From a psycho-analytical perspective, Spigel writes of the complexities of spectatorship research given the psychological aspects behind it. Although Spigel’s thoughts may be questioned in themselves, they do offer conclusive evidence of audience diversity today and how carefully each aspect of this diversity needs to be considered before deciding on scheduling or production. In this, we can see the great precautions television executives must need to take in order to contemplate parodying of any kind of popular film. Modern television, its workings and its impact upon the world Big, brash, loud. Three words which could describe much of the television programmes produced in America in recent years. Long gone is the demure image of the family sitting down to enjoy some good old American-style programming with shows such as Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie. Let’s face it, if these shows were produced today, they would face some accusations of glorifying witchcraft, yet another practice banned in Leviticus’ long list of gripes against the world. Somehow, the image of ABC being picketed for showing re-runs of Bewitched may at first strike us as absurd but with careful thought, does this seem so unlikely? One of the major problems facing network directors and schedulers is the problems they could face if showing any material seen as even slightly offensive to anybody. We will not engage here in mindless America-bashing but in a country that has long defended the right to free speech, both the film and television industries are being lambasted by religious and family protection groups for promoting violence and pornography. Whilst this could be understood if horror films were shown at hours when children watched TV or if their cartoons professed truly immoral practices but when complaints relate to Elmer Fudd shooting Bugs Bunny, one can wonder if the world has gone crazy. However insane these complaints can appear to be, they are still a startlingly important reality for today’s television. They form one of the biggest pressures on television executives who are caught in a tricky balancing act. They must maintain their audience shares by scheduling popular programming whilst also keeping packs of demented denigrators at bay. Interestingly, regulations concerning the effect of violent or sexual programming have been in place for decades. After all, most channels, even now with the new glut of cable and digital operators, have respected the 9 o’clock watershed before broadcasting any overly offensive material. Have they been secretly breaching rules of moral conduct in recent years? Whilst it is certain that television programmes do have an impact on those who watch them and while children will always care little about rules or regulations that protect them from exposition to negative images, can this be said to be the wholesale fault of the television industry? If the people want games, then games they shall have. This syllogism is one without which television stations cannot operate and although appeals could be made for public decency, violent and pornographic programmes will only be made and shown as long as the public has an interest in them. Thus, society should look to what elements within itself cause television to broadcast this type of programming rather than attack television for it. A recent example that shows just what a level of frenzy has been reached was the 2004 Superbowl. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson provided the entertainment when Timberlake ripped off part of Jackson’s outfit, exposing her pierced right breast. Whether the stunt was pre-prepared or not has not been made crystal clear but the furore that surrounded the incident was mind-boggling. The family protection and decency groups went insane, denouncing all film and television workers as Hollywood sleaze. The fact that this slip occurred during an event with global broadcasting and with audiences reaching into the hundreds of millions blew it out of all proportion. For some reason, that a breast had been shown on national television before the watershed was seen as being a massive breach of public decency and as potentially warping the fragile little minds of innocent children. This level of problems goes a long way to showing the tonnage of pressure placed upon television channels. However, it is thankfully a trend that has not seemed to take hold outside the USA. The EU, Japan and Canada are subjected to the same kind of programming and although some complaints are voiced, they never garner so much media attention. Thus, we can see that the manners in which television panders to its audiences vary from country to country. We have highlighted television’s modus operandi in the USA but let us consider a cross-section of Japanese audiovisual entertainment. More than 20% of Japan’s cinematic output and a vast swathe of its popular television programs are made up of anime. Anime cartoons usually contain far more involved storyline than their American counterparts, replete with high levels of violence, sexy and skimpily-clad female characters and yet, these are watched by children of all ages. Does Japan thus see a higher violence rate among young children? No, in fact, the proportion of it is far lower in Japan than it is in the USA. However, even Japanese anime does not make it onto American airwaves without massive cuts by the censorship office. A good example of this is constituted by the popular anime series, Dragonball Z. In it, a group of fighters defend Earth from invasion by evil aliens or androids. Throughout its 250+ episodes, the show contains high levels of violence, including dismembering, decapitation and the beating of children. As can be imagined, when the show was broadcast in America on Cartoon Network, all these passages were cut to spare the minds of our children. However, in Japan, Dragonball Z aired in all its unadulterated gore and no-one seemed the worse for wear. This is not to say that so much violence on TV is good. Indeed, it is lamentable that it should exist at all but it is highly unfair to lay the blame for any consequences at the feet of an industry which is doing its best to keep as many people happy as possible. Although, we have taken a standpoint in attacking America for its high sensitivity when it comes to protecting its children, we have recently been confronted with proof that this type of protest does not only occur in the USA. For ten years, Jerry Springer shocked the nation with its own brand of low chatshow humour. Famed topics of debate involved the KKK, incest and bestiality. It had met with both acclaim and criticism at home, some calling it a true social commentary, other cheap laughter at others’ misfortunes. Anyway, the comedic potential of the idea was soon seen and in 2002, it was turned into a musical named Jerry Springer: The Opera, starring David Soul as Jerry Springer, showing in the West End and on Broadway. Controversy courted it throughout but its great success shouted down these demons. However, in January 2005, the BBC decided to show the musical in its entirety. As soon as this decision was made public, Christian right-wing groups attacked the BBC for insulting Christians when it would not dare the same about Muslims or Jews. While this claim did have some merit, the BBC ignored these claims and broadcast the show at 10 o’clock on a Monday night with clear warning beforehand about the potentially offensive content within it. Examples of this type of occurrence could number in their hundreds but they are an ideal way of investigating how modern audiences identify with television programmes and react to them. One of the basic tenets is that post-modernism is that reactions to any situation are processes created by each individual and that thus, clear definitions of knowledge or art encompassing a group or a society are baseless. In this, it can be argued that the very concept of a post-modern audience is flawed. However, whatever theory we choose to engage with, we cannot reject human nature. In the last twenty years, it seems that many among the generation of young people across America who fought in the 60s and 70s against Vietnam, against the Cold War, for Civil Rights and for many other noble causes have become dangerously jaded. America’s quality of life at the end of the 70s and in the 80s reached a high unseen since the 50s. Although the gap between rich and poor was ever-widening, the lifestyles of the middle and upper classes were prodigious. America was still afflicted with problems in Iran, Central America but the Soviet Block was crumbling and the mood among the general population was good. However, in the 80s and 90s occurred a phenomenon that not many people had truly predicted. The baby-boomers who had so been influential in re-shaping America after World War II were themselves beginning to be required to pass the torch to the next generation. Thus, the norms of society that they had created were themselves being challenged by their children. This shift occurred through the appropriation of traditional American areas of life by the younger generation such as television, cinema, the press as well as the fledgling Internet. We will look in further detail at the emergence of teenagers as a separate marketing entity and the impact of the home video on cinema and television as it entered this confused social maze. (Carberry, 2000) picks up on the popular image of television being viewed as a window on the world. This image, although adequate in some respects, also fails to pay attention to one crucial fact about television. If we look out of a window, we are certain that we will see will be real. A television does not offer this capacity. Television programmes are constructed and even factual news bulletins or documentaries can be edited to look the way the news director wants them to. We know enough of methods of communication to realize the propagandistic power of television and therefore we are conscious that we must always take a step back when rationalizing about something we have seen on television. Television, by its very nature, is as big a construct as cinema however Television and Cinema in Post Modern Society Television and Cinema in Post Modern Society Television mocking its big brother Cinema? Through parody is television mocking its big brother Cinema or is simply feeding the post-modern society? Artistic achievement has, in most societies, usually seen as one of the highest goals for its citizens with artists held in highest esteem in society. The Classical civilizations of Rome and Ancient Greece are rightly regarded as artistic highlights of world civilizations due to the unprecedented status given to artists of all trades: poets, painters, bards, actors, sculptors and musicians. This respect for excellence in the arts still exists today However modern art is unfortunately too often derided as a thing of paltry significance as compared to the great artists of the past. FPeriods of high accomplishment such as Ancient Greece or the Renaissance are rightly regarded as containing such artists whose skill and mastery of their respective disciplines may rarely be emulated, if ever. However, is that a reason for giving up on modern artistic output? After all, the twentieth century was that of Pollock, Rockwell and Hockney. But lest we forget, in the annals of history, it is doubtful that the past 100 years will be remembered for their contribution to age-old art forms such as painting or sculpture. Instead, it seems likely and indeed fair that the 20th century will be remembered for the creation, popularization and investigation of the audio-visual arts of cinema and television. From the first shots of the train moving out of Carpentras station, cinema has moved the hearts and minds of millions. The 20th century was witness to the greatest technological advancements in human history and artistic output followed suit. After the silent pictures of the 1900s first captures audiences to the first black-and-white talkies, cinematic progress could never be checked. From success to success, people round the world would be enchanted by Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, awed by Harryhausen’s special effects, moved by Gone With The Wind and horrified by Birth Of A Nation. Every decade would bring an advancement in cinematic output, something which would revolutionize the industry once again and bring new generations into cinemas. These constant progressions in cinema would take place at a far faster rate than in other arts due to several important factors. First of all, the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th-century had sent technological development across the world into a tail-spin which impacted cinema very positively by providing studios with a constant stream of new machinery, effects possibilities. The knock-on effect from this was of course that a steady stream of technicians would be trained and employed by the great studios. We will be analyzing the hiring and firing practices of the studio moguls as compared to the lifelong television employees further on in this dissertation. Another great reason for the appeal of cinema would be the characters contained within it. The glamour of Hollywood until the 1940s would make audiences dream across five continents up to the present day. The gritty reality of much of today’s cinematic output had not even been imagined and movies were used to make people dream of a greater life. We will use this opportunity to further analyze the setting-up of the movie studios, the Jewish origins of most of the moguls and the taste of Americana they injected into their projects later on. Furthermore, we will draw up a detailed comparison between the early days of both film and television, analyzing which tactics worked better in the battles for a limited audience. Even horrifying world events such as World War II would provide the film industry with invigoration as Hollywood and the pre-war German film studios would engage in a rivalry, the like of which has rarely been seen in the arts. With the Hollywood ban on exporting American films to the Third Reich, the motivation for German film-makers was extraordinary and names such as Murnau and Lang emerged as major players on the world cinema scene. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them fled Germany during or after the war to seek new lives in Hollywood. Many failed but some met with varying measures of success, the greatest legacy of this time possibly contained in Fritz Lang’s masterpiece Metropolis, the ominous skyline filled with skyscrapers working as a tribute to Lang’s first impressions of seeing New York harbour from far out at sea. However, even from that darkest period of human history has emerged some of the most shocking and lasting pieces of film. The films shot by the Allied forces of the Nazi concentration camps have proved perhaps the most important factor of documentary cinema. Beyond the artistry, beyond the emotional impact, cinema has provided humankind with an unlimited opportunity to document its own history, both good and bad. An opportunity television executives would notice and pick up on. Even today, the claims made by CNN and BBC such as ‘We are there as the news happens’ stem from the passion for news-stories instilled in people during the World War when small news flashes shown as previews before films in movie theatres were the only pictures civilians at home had of the war outside of newspapers. These propagandistic items were of course good for morale and television would soon enter into the fray, edging cinema out to take a monopoly over showing news programs. We must also consider another important area of research. The ‘parodying’ between television and cinema is a term of some ambiguity. Within this dissertation, we will also try and highlight the inherent differences between the terms of parody and emulation. As per rivalry in any kind of industry, some actions that may seem to be a parody of existing practices are in fact no more than emulation, a mere attempt to capitalize on a rival’s success. The concept of parody on the other hand is a very subtle one. Although television and cinema are by definition filled with some of the most acerbic minds in the world, minds quite ripe to create parody, it is somewhat naà ¯ve to think that these people would be allowed to impact decisions on scheduling and programme production. Only those at the summit of their popularity would be allowed their own shows, let alone given creative control of their shows. A recent example of this happening in Britain would be So Graham Norton. However, even these shows often fail as can be demonstrated as can be seen through the antics of stars such as Liza Minnelli, John McEnroe or Anna Nicole Smith. Thus, we can observe that the concept of pure parody being used by cinema and television for its own sake is somewhat mortifying, given the massive financial risks such an undertaking would incur. However, if parody was created to feed the viewing desires of a post-modern audience, then such an action becomes more realistic. To study this, we shall take an in-depth look at the nature of today’s post-modern audience and their viewing habits. In this dissertation, we will be looking in more depth at the first fledgling footsteps of both these art forms, the characters that helped build them up to their global statuses as well as two important periods in their history. The 50s and 60s where cinema and television were in direct competition through the slow transition period of the 70s and 80s into the modern-day scenario of co-operation. With this journey through time, we will be looking at trends pioneered by each of them and looking at any sharing or borrowing of ideas between the two mediums, we shall observe their long and drawn-out rivalry as well as the numerous examples of co-operation between them. The Glamour Years or the faint ridicule of cinema’s golden age If 90% of leadership is showing up, then we can hardly be surprised at the manner in which the men who would become studio moguls quickly rose to the top of this brand new industry. The founders of Paramount, RKO, MGM, Fox and Warner Bros. were for the vast majority immigrants or children of immigrants who had come to America either to seek their fortune or who had grown up with the image of America as this place of opportunity. In the first two decades of the 20th century, these views were far truer than they are now but to attain what one desired when the bar was so high, a lot of hard work would have to be carried out over many years. Thankfully, hard work was what these men’s families had been built on. Possessing this instinct along with a fine sense for business acumen, which some would sarcastically claim was due to their Jewish nature, Mayer, Goldwyn and the others would take the American cinematic market by storm. Before continuing, let us dispel any lingering images of these men helping each other out on their way to success. They entered a ruthless line of business where they were in direct competition and they tried everything to ruin each other, from slandering each other in the popular press to stealing actors and actresses. However, more united them than the moguls would have cared to admit. Since most of them had risen from humble beginnings, their visions of America were an embodiment of the American Dream that had influenced the migration of countless thousands from their home countries. The MGM studio, for example, would become synonymous with Technicolor musicals such as The Wizard of Oz portraying the world as a happy, bright place where everyone lived contently. The Warners would take a more active interest in social commentary but even their early efforts never went too far in criticizing a society that had offered them so much. Across the studio divide, the concepts of method acting had never even been considered and the goal of cinema was to make their actors and actresses look glamorous while portraying a style of life that would make every American dream in wonder. Why this image can be considered with a slight tint of ridicule is its existence in the middle of such troubled times. In the space of thirty years, America would fight in the two bloodiest conflicts in human history yet still, the studios churned out glossy movies, filled with beautiful dames and jolly banter. But here, once again, we strike a familiar obstacle, one that both film and television have met too many times. Too often in criticism about their history, studios or television networks are blamed for the programmes they carry or films they produce. Unfortunately, whilst they cannot be absolved of all blame, the relationship between social trends and popular entertainment is an obvious one. At a time in its history when America was fighting wars, undergoing a recession as well as Prohibition, the last thing American audiences wanted was to be served up with depressing fare that they could identify with. If another example of this is needed, look at what kind of cinema was popularized in the 50s. After the war, the film noir came of age and rose to ascendancy when American society was doing well and people felt good about themselves. A crucial fact that those who are all too quick to lay blame at the feet of the studios is that films and television programs will only be made if their creators feel they will be well-received by the general public. Television’s first faltering footsteps The intertwining and complex relationship between cinema and television cannot only be analyzed from the perspectives of programme similarity and audience sharing. Those who decided on what programmes should be commissioned, those who researched audiences to determine what kind of target audiences should be tapped, those who decided on what type of scheduling to choose at any given time of day, these television executives, producers and network directors would be the ones that would outline how television would evolve from one year to the next. As has been explained, television channels found themselves confronted with a very difficult challenge. Whereas film studios had been opened in great pomp and ceremony with the budgets of their moguls behind them thus allowing them to find their feet and carve their respective identities without a vast amount of competitive pressure placed upon them. Television did not benefit from such an auspicious start. The challenge that faced channels was to find their own identities and thus capture individual audience shares whilst fighting an uphill struggle to dislodge cinema from its spot atop the entertainment mountain. To take this would kind a special kind of organization. How could television not only catch up to cinema but also surpass it in popularity? Well, television started out with two significant advantages. Firstly, that of money. The far larger amount of broadcasting time inherent to television made it a much more viable target for financial gain than cinema which could only show any adverts to limited audiences. The commercial prospects of television soon became clear and this links us neatly with its second trump card. Throughout the 50s, television’s popularity exploded and families were rushing to buy them. The reason this had not occurred during the 1940s was that regulations concerning this new kind of entertainment were still getting sorted out and freed of problems. At the end of the 40s, television was still a luxury and commissions for TV channels had only really affected the East and West Coasts. However, in the 50s, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) decided to make the acquisition of such a commission far easier and soon, channels began appearing across the States, often broadcasting to a small area but carrying only limited-interest stories for its local people. Thus, television watching became a far more personal affair. As far as programme content, a specific identity for television developed slowly through the 50s with the launching of successful sitcoms such as I Love Lucy which carried high audience shares across the country. However, we can distinguish here the first example of a parody between two entertainment methods. Shows that were once popular on radio were being copied to television, with I Love Lucy a prime example of this. (Wikipedia, 2005) illustrates the identity-forming process of television by explaining how local television stations helped shape this process. Moving on from   merely showing advertisements for local companies, they began showing small serials and talk shows, some of which became national phenomenons. The local nature of this kind of television would eventually mostly fade away by the 70s but the damage done to cinema was irreparable. Television had entered the hearts and minds of successive American generations and it was here to stay. Here, we can draw a major comparison between cinema and television potentially parodying it. Merely watching a few episodes of these old-school sitcoms, we cannot help but be struck at the similarity of tone to the pre-war Hollywood days. It is necessary to diverge briefly to explain the state of mind of 1950s America. Before the war, the USA had undergone a massive recession caused by the Wall Street Crash and thus, it had fallen to the entertainment industry to help people forget their woes. The film industry had done this, as shown above, but the changes it had caused had not died away. Although World War II had caused the death of many a gallant young man, it had lifted the USA into a very buoyant mindset. With the European powers needing a decade more to recover from the conflict, with Japan’s military and economic potential temporarily annihilated, with China still reeling from its murderous invasion, the Soviet Union remained the only true challenge to America’s supremacy. But the Cold War had not yet begun in earnest and in the late 40s and early 50s, the USA saw itself as the world’s only true superpower. The much denigrated Eisenhower presidency kept the economy stable through a tricky balancing act and for most of America, life was good. The Americana dream adapted to no longer be a picture of great wealth but of blissful happiness. The family unit of 2.4 children, living in the comfortable and safe suburban districts with a white picket fence around a big house, was a dream that many wished to achieve and television could reflect that. Shows such as I Love Lucy portrayed a heavenly, glossy picture of American society which is ultimately matched nowhere in entertainment except among the idyllic American communities shown in early studio films. The Warners, Mayer and the others had all built up their studios from the ground up thanks to their own hard work. They were living proof of the possibilities America offered and thus showed this in their films. Television in the 50s emulated this entirely. The era was different, the clothing more modern but the ensemble feeling remained the same. This was not merely borne out in television sitcoms but also in adverts. Sitcoms would be interrupted for commercial upon commercial selling the latest washing-machine, vacuum-cleaner or kitchen appliance without which the dutiful housewife could not live. It is oddly ironic that many of today’s stereotypes about the 50s are a product of this kind of television. It needs to be remembered, However, that this often derided type of family life where the children skipped to school, rosy-cheeked and clutching an apple, while the father gave his loving wife a demure kiss on the cheek before heading to the office in his beautiful Chevrolet is not merely a myth. Around the suburbs of New York, San Francisco and the like, many families not only lived this kind of life but their children and grandchildren still do today. However, the way in which television chose to reflect this society in a utopian sense, glossing over any unpleasantness, was a definite rehashing of the technique used by the film studios of Hollywood twenty years previously. The adaptation of the two mediums and their direct battle for audience shares As television successfully found its feet and began a posing direct threat to cinema, studios were forced to change. After all, no other new form of entertainment had entered general society since the arrival of cinema before television and thus, cinema would have to fight to keep its audiences. A couple of things could be seen as certain before these changes would proceed. Firstly, cinema would never rival television for mass popularity and market potential due to the overwhelming availability of television and its presence in an increasing number of households across America. Secondly, one of television’s worrying tendencies was to garner a lot of advertising money from a wide swathe of big American companies. Electrical appliances, cars, clothes, foodstuffs and drinks were all sold on television during commercial breaks, a fact that cinema could not copy. However, studio executives soon found ways round this problem, ways in which although adverts could not be shown during the movie, surreptitious showing of products could have a similar effect. Product placement was born. Admittedly, in a society which with every passing year produces more and wastes more, it seems that studios have become less adept at making product placement seem natural rather than obvious. The 007 series had always been a treasure trove for companies wishing to place their symbols on James Bond’s latest gadget. With the arrival of Pierce Brosnan into the role However, any shred of subtlety vanished to be replaced with highly obvious use of products. For example, Brosnan’s type of car had always been one of the highlights of the film. In Die Another Day, the presence of the painfully named Aston Martin ‘Vanish’ only served as a sales pitch for the Vanquish. Such utterly shameless product placement did reach a crescendo in 2004 where the amount of plugging for Sony and Converse in I, Robot would have made Isaac Asimov turn in his grave. However, such behaviour can shed some light onto the type of post-modern audience that we are evolving in. Those detractors who claim that post-modernism is merely the natural by-product of such a senselessly wasteful society whose mechanisms result in the attempted alienation of anyone showing a shred of individuality. Whether this is true or not is difficult to ascertain but what is lamentable is that the artistic integrity which has existed since Aristotle is being compromised in cinema out of the desire to keep up with television. Thankfully, the presence of adverts in television, even if sometimes the length of advert breaks can be infuriating has meant this has not happened in television’s case. If we evolve in a post-modernist society, then these differing methods of merely pandering to our consumer’s instincts could seem to be a by-product of intense competition between two forms of popular entertainment. Unfortunately, cinema’s rapid changes would lead to renewed controversy over its spectatorship and its impact thereupon as explained by Lynn Spigel. The concept of spectatorship in itself is a fascinating one, not just within the framework of this dissertation, but also within the field of cinema and television research. The bearings that society can have upon an audience’s watching habits are a crucial fact to understanding how individuals, larger target groups or entire demographics will react to any kind of program. (Spigel, 1998) places the birth of the issue of spectatorship in the 70s as film studies began increasing in popularity. This rise in popularity and its link to audience research are vital as we can use them to comprehend not just how an audience would react to a pioneering film or series in either cinema or television but also how it would react to a parody or any kind of wholesale copying of a popular film or series by another medium of entertainment. The issues raised by Spigel are ones, she claims, whose roots lie back in the ideals of Marx and Lacan. From a psycho-analytical perspective, Spigel writes of the complexities of spectatorship research given the psychological aspects behind it. Although Spigel’s thoughts may be questioned in themselves, they do offer conclusive evidence of audience diversity today and how carefully each aspect of this diversity needs to be considered before deciding on scheduling or production. In this, we can see the great precautions television executives must need to take in order to contemplate parodying of any kind of popular film. Modern television, its workings and its impact upon the world Big, brash, loud. Three words which could describe much of the television programmes produced in America in recent years. Long gone is the demure image of the family sitting down to enjoy some good old American-style programming with shows such as Bewitched or I Dream of Jeannie. Let’s face it, if these shows were produced today, they would face some accusations of glorifying witchcraft, yet another practice banned in Leviticus’ long list of gripes against the world. Somehow, the image of ABC being picketed for showing re-runs of Bewitched may at first strike us as absurd but with careful thought, does this seem so unlikely? One of the major problems facing network directors and schedulers is the problems they could face if showing any material seen as even slightly offensive to anybody. We will not engage here in mindless America-bashing but in a country that has long defended the right to free speech, both the film and television industries are being lambasted by religious and family protection groups for promoting violence and pornography. Whilst this could be understood if horror films were shown at hours when children watched TV or if their cartoons professed truly immoral practices but when complaints relate to Elmer Fudd shooting Bugs Bunny, one can wonder if the world has gone crazy. However insane these complaints can appear to be, they are still a startlingly important reality for today’s television. They form one of the biggest pressures on television executives who are caught in a tricky balancing act. They must maintain their audience shares by scheduling popular programming whilst also keeping packs of demented denigrators at bay. Interestingly, regulations concerning the effect of violent or sexual programming have been in place for decades. After all, most channels, even now with the new glut of cable and digital operators, have respected the 9 o’clock watershed before broadcasting any overly offensive material. Have they been secretly breaching rules of moral conduct in recent years? Whilst it is certain that television programmes do have an impact on those who watch them and while children will always care little about rules or regulations that protect them from exposition to negative images, can this be said to be the wholesale fault of the television industry? If the people want games, then games they shall have. This syllogism is one without which television stations cannot operate and although appeals could be made for public decency, violent and pornographic programmes will only be made and shown as long as the public has an interest in them. Thus, society should look to what elements within itself cause television to broadcast this type of programming rather than attack television for it. A recent example that shows just what a level of frenzy has been reached was the 2004 Superbowl. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson provided the entertainment when Timberlake ripped off part of Jackson’s outfit, exposing her pierced right breast. Whether the stunt was pre-prepared or not has not been made crystal clear but the furore that surrounded the incident was mind-boggling. The family protection and decency groups went insane, denouncing all film and television workers as Hollywood sleaze. The fact that this slip occurred during an event with global broadcasting and with audiences reaching into the hundreds of millions blew it out of all proportion. For some reason, that a breast had been shown on national television before the watershed was seen as being a massive breach of public decency and as potentially warping the fragile little minds of innocent children. This level of problems goes a long way to showing the tonnage of pressure placed upon television channels. However, it is thankfully a trend that has not seemed to take hold outside the USA. The EU, Japan and Canada are subjected to the same kind of programming and although some complaints are voiced, they never garner so much media attention. Thus, we can see that the manners in which television panders to its audiences vary from country to country. We have highlighted television’s modus operandi in the USA but let us consider a cross-section of Japanese audiovisual entertainment. More than 20% of Japan’s cinematic output and a vast swathe of its popular television programs are made up of anime. Anime cartoons usually contain far more involved storyline than their American counterparts, replete with high levels of violence, sexy and skimpily-clad female characters and yet, these are watched by children of all ages. Does Japan thus see a higher violence rate among young children? No, in fact, the proportion of it is far lower in Japan than it is in the USA. However, even Japanese anime does not make it onto American airwaves without massive cuts by the censorship office. A good example of this is constituted by the popular anime series, Dragonball Z. In it, a group of fighters defend Earth from invasion by evil aliens or androids. Throughout its 250+ episodes, the show contains high levels of violence, including dismembering, decapitation and the beating of children. As can be imagined, when the show was broadcast in America on Cartoon Network, all these passages were cut to spare the minds of our children. However, in Japan, Dragonball Z aired in all its unadulterated gore and no-one seemed the worse for wear. This is not to say that so much violence on TV is good. Indeed, it is lamentable that it should exist at all but it is highly unfair to lay the blame for any consequences at the feet of an industry which is doing its best to keep as many people happy as possible. Although, we have taken a standpoint in attacking America for its high sensitivity when it comes to protecting its children, we have recently been confronted with proof that this type of protest does not only occur in the USA. For ten years, Jerry Springer shocked the nation with its own brand of low chatshow humour. Famed topics of debate involved the KKK, incest and bestiality. It had met with both acclaim and criticism at home, some calling it a true social commentary, other cheap laughter at others’ misfortunes. Anyway, the comedic potential of the idea was soon seen and in 2002, it was turned into a musical named Jerry Springer: The Opera, starring David Soul as Jerry Springer, showing in the West End and on Broadway. Controversy courted it throughout but its great success shouted down these demons. However, in January 2005, the BBC decided to show the musical in its entirety. As soon as this decision was made public, Christian right-wing groups attacked the BBC for insulting Christians when it would not dare the same about Muslims or Jews. While this claim did have some merit, the BBC ignored these claims and broadcast the show at 10 o’clock on a Monday night with clear warning beforehand about the potentially offensive content within it. Examples of this type of occurrence could number in their hundreds but they are an ideal way of investigating how modern audiences identify with television programmes and react to them. One of the basic tenets is that post-modernism is that reactions to any situation are processes created by each individual and that thus, clear definitions of knowledge or art encompassing a group or a society are baseless. In this, it can be argued that the very concept of a post-modern audience is flawed. However, whatever theory we choose to engage with, we cannot reject human nature. In the last twenty years, it seems that many among the generation of young people across America who fought in the 60s and 70s against Vietnam, against the Cold War, for Civil Rights and for many other noble causes have become dangerously jaded. America’s quality of life at the end of the 70s and in the 80s reached a high unseen since the 50s. Although the gap between rich and poor was ever-widening, the lifestyles of the middle and upper classes were prodigious. America was still afflicted with problems in Iran, Central America but the Soviet Block was crumbling and the mood among the general population was good. However, in the 80s and 90s occurred a phenomenon that not many people had truly predicted. The baby-boomers who had so been influential in re-shaping America after World War II were themselves beginning to be required to pass the torch to the next generation. Thus, the norms of society that they had created were themselves being challenged by their children. This shift occurred through the appropriation of traditional American areas of life by the younger generation such as television, cinema, the press as well as the fledgling Internet. We will look in further detail at the emergence of teenagers as a separate marketing entity and the impact of the home video on cinema and television as it entered this confused social maze. (Carberry, 2000) picks up on the popular image of television being viewed as a window on the world. This image, although adequate in some respects, also fails to pay attention to one crucial fact about television. If we look out of a window, we are certain that we will see will be real. A television does not offer this capacity. Television programmes are constructed and even factual news bulletins or documentaries can be edited to look the way the news director wants them to. We know enough of methods of communication to realize the propagandistic power of television and therefore we are conscious that we must always take a step back when rationalizing about something we have seen on television. Television, by its very nature, is as big a construct as cinema however

Legalizing Drugs Essay -- Illegal Drugs Narcotics

Legalizing Drugs Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article â€Å"Against the Legalization of Drugs†, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage; therefore, anybody could afford it (367). Wilson stated that during 1960’s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts until the number of addicts increased fivefold. He argued that cocaine is not a â€Å"victimless crime.† Addicts victimize children by neglect and spouses by not providing (370). Wilson upholds that illegality of drugs increases crime because users need to pay for their habit (372). He believes the benefit of illegal drugs is it forces patients who enter under legal compulsion to complete their treatment due to the pressure and drug-education programs in the schools (374). Wilson is convinced the difference between nicotine and cocaine is that while tobacco shortens one’s life, cocaine debase it and destroys the addicts humanity (375). Wilson’s argument is strong because he demonstrates his knowledge of the subject and supports it with many clear, scientific facts and historical examples of drug usage. He interprets facts differently by seeing â€Å"logical fallacy and factual error† (371) in what other perceive as being a true. He also acknowledges his opposition by addressing how the advocates of legalization respond to his position. Wilson recognizes that that he may b e wrong about his conclusions of drug legalization. Yet he states if he is wrong, money will be saved, while if he is right, and the legalizers prevail, then millions of people, thousands of infants and hundreds of neighborhoods will live a life of disease (377-8). In the article â€Å"Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,† by William J. Bennentt, drug legalization was not supported. Bennett wants to address the â€Å"root causes† of drugs by means of... ...ons of this issue provide were fully supported. I concluded that the anti-legalist hold a stronger argument than the legalist. Still, Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. Works Cited Bennett, William J. â€Å"Drug Policy and the Intellectuals.† Drug Policy 1989-90, A Guide. Ed. Arnold S Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. Rpt. In Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996. 358-64. Schmoke, Kurt, â€Å"A War for the Surgeon General, Not the Attorney General.† New Perspectives. Rpt. in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996. 379-84. Tooley Michael, â€Å" Our Current Drug Legalization: Grounds for Reconsideration,† Newsletter of the Center for Values and Social Policy, vol8, no. 1, Spring 1994. Rpt.in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996. 385-89. Wilson, James Q, â€Å"Against the legalization of Drugs,† Commentary, Feburary 1990. Rpt.in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996. 365-78.

Succubus Shadows Chapter 20

I woke up in my own bed and found Mei sitting beside it. Not even Nurse Ratched could have startled me that much. Mei was flipping through a magazine and glanced up, appearing bored. â€Å"Oh. You're awake. Finally.† She stood up. â€Å"What†¦what happened?† I asked, blinking at the light pouring in through my window. I was kind of surprised she hadn't shut the curtains. She didn't really strike me as a fun-in-the-sun person. â€Å"You don't remember?† Her disinterested expression sharpened. â€Å"Jerome said it would all come back to you. If it hasn't†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I sat up, drawing my knees to my body. â€Å"No, no. I remember†¦I remember what happened at Erik's. I remember†¦the Oneroi.† Saying the word made me shudder. â€Å"But what happened after that? How long have I been asleep?† â€Å"Three days,† she said flatly. â€Å"What?† I stared at her, my mouth agape. If Mei was the joking type, I would have expected the punch line now. â€Å"I don't†¦I mean, it went so fast. And I didn't dream.† She crooked me a smile. â€Å"Seems like you'd want that. And heavy sleep heals you faster.† The smile changed to a grimace. â€Å"Not that waiting by your bedside for three days has really felt that fast. Jerome made me keep all your friends away. That was fun.† â€Å"Did you just use sarcasm?† â€Å"I'm leaving,† she said, back to her all business self. â€Å"I've done what Jerome asked.† â€Å"Wait! What happened to Seth and Erik? Are they okay?† â€Å"Fine,† she said. I waited for her to vanish, but it didn't come. She peered at me curiously. â€Å"It shouldn't have worked, you know.† â€Å"What shouldn't have?† â€Å"That ritual. There is no way that human could have found you. Not among all those other souls.† The Oneroi had said the same thing, and thinking back to the storm of color and disorder, I could understand their reasoning. â€Å"We†¦we love each other.† I wasn't sure I had the right to those words, but they came out anyway. Mei rolled her eyes. â€Å"That means nothing. Human love – no matter what all your songs and chick flicks tell you – isn't enough. It shouldn't have worked.† I didn't know what to say. â€Å"Well†¦I guess it did.† â€Å"Jerome knew it would too,† she mused, a small frown wrinkling her brow. Her gaze hardened on me. â€Å"Did you? Do you know how it happened?† â€Å"What?† I squeaked. â€Å"No! I don't understand any of this.† I expected her to deny this and question me further. Instead her frown only deepened, and I realized I was no longer of use in solving this dilemma to her. She vanished. The instant she disappeared, Roman came bursting into my room. â€Å"She's gone?† he asked. If he was nearby, he would have felt her signature go away. â€Å"Have you been hanging out the whole time?† I asked. He sat down in the chair she'd been in. â€Å"Jerome ordered her not to let anyone come near you.† â€Å"You could have taken her,† I said, attempting a joke. â€Å"Not without causing a whole lot of trouble.† He frowned, eyes troubled with thought. â€Å"Although, I would have revealed myself if I'd needed to if that†¦thing that came out of the gate had tried to take on Carter and Jerome.† I shuddered at the memory. â€Å"I didn't even know there were monsters like that in the – wait. How could you have helped them? Were you†¦were you in the circle?† I'd assumed he'd been watching from the sides. â€Å"Of course.† He said no more, and the way he spoke implied that it had been a ridiculous question for me to ask in the first place. â€Å"Are you crazy?† I exclaimed. â€Å"You weren't just letting yourself get trapped. If you were discovered by Mei – even any of the dream creatures – you'd be fucked. They would have turned you in too.† â€Å"There was no choice,† Roman said. â€Å"I had to be there, in case you needed me.† â€Å"It was too big a risk,† I countered, my voice faltering this time. â€Å"If there'd been a fight, Jerome and Carter would have had no reason to defend you. And while that Morphean might have been afraid to hurt them, you would have been fair game.† â€Å"I told you, it doesn't matter. I had to be there for you.† His eyes, those eyes that were so like the sea I'd grown up with, held such earnestness and affection that I had to look away. I couldn't believe he'd risked what he had for me. Why? He had no reason to care about me after what I'd done to him, yet it was clear he still wanted me. The night I'd been captured seemed like a lifetime ago, but its events came back to me in perfect detail: his lips, his hands†¦ â€Å"I wish you wanted to kill me again,† I muttered. â€Å"It was easier.† He rested his hand on mine, its warmth spreading through me. â€Å"Nothing about your life is ever easy.† I looked back up at him. â€Å"That's for damn sure. But I don't know†¦I don't know if I can do this†¦by which I mean, well, you know.† â€Å"You don't have to do anything,† he said. â€Å"We'll just keep going on like we have. Roommates. We'll see where things go. If they change, they change. If not†¦Ã¢â‚¬  He shrugged. â€Å"So it goes.† â€Å"Did I mention that it was easier when you wanted to kill me? I'm not sure how I feel about you being so reasonable.† â€Å"Yeah, well, maybe I just feel sorry for you right now after everything that happened. Maybe I'll change my mind in a little while.† He squeezed my hand. â€Å"Was it†¦was it awful?† I looked away again. â€Å"Yes. Beyond awful. It's hard to explain. They showed me every nightmare I could have, every fear made flesh. Some of the things they showed me had already happened – and were almost as bad as the nightmares. I couldn't tell what was reality anymore. They showed me you guys†¦but it wasn't always real. I doubted everything: who I was, what I felt†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I swallowed back tears, glad I had averted my eyes. â€Å"Hey,† he said softly, reaching out to tip my chin and make me look back at him. â€Å"It's over. You're safe. We'll help you get better – I'll help. I won't let anything happen to you.† Again, his feelings for me made me uncomfortable and confused. Was it a lingering effect of the Oneroi? No, I decided a moment later. This was the kind of situation that would confuse anyone. My heart was still tangled up in Seth, someone I knew I should let go, but who had found me against impossible odds. And here was Roman, someone I could be with a bit more easily – well, kind of – and who had risked his life for me. Could I move on with him? I didn't know. But I could try. I found his hand again and squeezed it. â€Å"Thank you.† He leaned toward me, and I think we might have kissed, but the ringing of my cell phone jolted us out of any romantic spell. I pulled my hand from his and grabbed the phone from my side table. â€Å"Hello?† â€Å"Miss Kincaid,† came the kind, familiar voice. â€Å"It is a pleasure to speak with you again.† â€Å"Erik! Oh, I'm so happy it's you. I wanted to thank you – â€Å" â€Å"There's nothing to thank me for. I would gladly do it again.† â€Å"Well, then, I'm still thanking you anyway.† Roman, realizing this had nothing to do with him, got up and wandered off – but not before giving me one more fond look. â€Å"As you wish,† said Erik. â€Å"Are you feeling better?† â€Å"More or less. Certainly better in body. And I think the rest will come.† I wished that with my body's healing, I could also forget all the horrible things I'd seen. That wouldn't happen, though, and I felt no need to trouble him with my problems. â€Å"I'm glad,† he said. â€Å"Very glad.† Silence fell, and a suspicious feeling nudged its way into my brain. I'd assumed he was simply calling to check up on me, but something now told me there was more. â€Å"Miss Kincaid,† he said at last. â€Å"I'm sure you don't want to talk about what happened†¦.† â€Å"I – well.† I hesitated. I knew Erik. He wouldn't bring this up without a good reason. â€Å"Is there something we should talk about?† Now it was his turn to hesitate. â€Å"You thank me†¦but to be truthful, what we did shouldn't have worked. I didn't expect it to.† Mei's comments came back to me, as did the other conversations I'd witnessed via the dreams. â€Å"Nobody seemed to.† â€Å"Mr. Jerome did.† â€Å"Where is this going?† â€Å"I don't know how it worked. Mr. Mortensen should not have found your soul.† I loved Erik and hated the irritation in my voice. â€Å"I keep hearing that over and over, but obviously he did. Maybe it should have been impossible, but after what I went through? I don't care how it happened.† â€Å"I would imagine not, but still†¦still, I can't help but wonder at this. Would you mind telling me what it was like when he found you?† That was one part of the ordeal I didn't mind recounting, largely because it had had a happy ending. Of course, the logistics of explaining it weren't so easy. I did my best to describe what it was like being adrift in the dream world and how Seth had seemed to call to me. Erik listened patiently and then asked if I'd tell him about my contract with Hell and how I'd sold my soul. That was a little harder to tell, not to mention a bizarre question. The Oneroi had shown me so many versions of what had happened with Kyriakos and me, and while some had been true and some false, they'd all been horrible. Still, sensing something big might be going on here, I haltingly recounted the whole experience: how I'd cheated on Kyriakos with his best friend, infidelity that was later discovered. It was the sorrow from that that had driven Kyriakos into suicidal grief, which in turn drove me to sign a contract with Hell. I'd sold my soul and become a succubus, in exchange for everyone I knew – including Kyriakos – to forget me and the awful things I'd done. â€Å"Tell me the terms one more time,† said Erik. â€Å"It was that everyone I knew back then would forget me and forget what happened – family, friends, and especially my husband.† My voice choked a little. â€Å"It worked. I came back later, and no one knew me. Not even a glimmer of familiarity.† â€Å"There was nothing else in the contract?† â€Å"No. An imp I know looked it over recently and verified it.† â€Å"Oh?† This caught Erik's interest. â€Å"Why would he do that?† â€Å"She. As a favor. The imp who'd brokered my sale was the one who worked with Nyx and kept messing with Seth. Hugh said when an imp shows that much interest, there's something wrong with a contract. So Kristin – this other imp – looked at my contract.† She hadn't been very happy about doing that. If she'd been caught snooping in Hell's records, there would have been some very, very bad consequences. Her gratitude over me hooking her up with her boss had overpowered her fear. â€Å"She told me it was airtight. Everything was like it was supposed to be. No errors.† More silence. This conversation was starting to make me uneasy. â€Å"Did this imp – Niphon? – end up doing anything to Mr. Mortensen?† â€Å"Not so much†¦I mean, it was part of what led us to breaking up†¦.† I paused to collect myself. â€Å"But there were a lot of other factors that caused that too.† â€Å"Has Niphon been back?† â€Å"No, but there has been this succubus.† With everything else, I'd forgotten about Simone. â€Å"She was impersonating me. Kept trying to seduce Seth†¦but it didn't work. I think Jerome sent her packing, but I'm not sure.† Again, Erik took a long time in responding. Finally, he sighed. â€Å"Thank you, Miss Kincaid. You've given me much to think about. I apologize if I've brought up painful memories. And I'm very happy you're feeling better.† â€Å"Thanks,† I said. â€Å"And thanks again for your help.† We disconnected, and I wandered out to the living room. Roman was in the kitchen, plating up some grilled cheese sandwiches. â€Å"Hungry?† he asked. â€Å"Starving,† I said. He handed me a plate, along with a cup of coffee, and I smiled. â€Å"Thanks. Not sure what I did to deserve this.† â€Å"You don't have to do anything. Besides, I had extra. Wanted a big meal before going to work.† â€Å"Before – what?† The grin he gave me indicated he'd been dying to deliver this news. â€Å"I got a job.† â€Å"You did not.† â€Å"I did. Went back to the school I used to teach at. They had a couple openings, so I'm doing a few classes.† I was dumbfounded. After all my badgering, Roman had sought gainful employment – in his specialty, no less: linguistics. â€Å"Does this mean you're going to pay rent now?† â€Å"Let's not get carried away, love.† He grabbed a plate of his own, and we ate in the living room while the cats watched hopefully for leftovers. Seeing Godiva, I felt a frown coming on. The dream. The man in the dream. The Oneroi had said it was Seth†¦but that was impossible. I lifted my eyes up to Roman, wondering if I could rekindle the love I'd once had. If there was any man in any dream, he would be a better candidate. â€Å"You talked to Erik for a while,† Roman said, noting my scrutiny. â€Å"He's weirded out by my rescue. He says it shouldn't have worked.† â€Å"Yeah, I heard that too.† Between bites, I recounted the conversation, including Erik's interest in Seth and my contract. â€Å"I don't see what the big deal is,† I concluded. â€Å"Seth and I still have feelings for each other – feelings we're trying to get past.† In that moment when our souls had met, though, separating from him had been the last thing I wanted. â€Å"Maybe that was enough. Maybe people don't have faith in the power of love.† â€Å"Maybe,† said Roman. But he looked thoughtful now too. A knock at the door interrupted further conversation. I felt no immortal signature and hoped it wasn't my neighbor trolling for more sex. He'd mercifully left me alone so far. But no, it wasn't Gavin. It was Maddie. And she was crying. I asked no questions. When friends are in trouble, you take care of them first. I pulled her right inside and led her to the couch, immediately putting my arms around her. â€Å"What's wrong?† I asked finally. â€Å"What happened?† She couldn't speak right away. Her sobs were too great, and she was choking on her own tears. Something nudged my arm. It was Roman handing me a box of tissues. I shot him a grateful look and gave some to Maddie. At long last, she gasped out, â€Å"It's Seth.† My heart stopped. For a moment, a hundred awful scenarios flew through my mind. Seth hit by a car. Seth struck by some deadly disease. I clutched her arm, so tightly that I realized my nails were digging into her. I relaxed my grip as best I could. â€Å"What happened?† I demanded. â€Å"Is he okay?† â€Å"He ended it.† Her crying renewed. â€Å"He broke the engagement and told me it was over.† She buried her face against my shoulder, and I stroked her absentmindedly as my brain tried hard to really comprehend her words. I must have misheard. â€Å"He couldn't have,† I said, my voice as cracked as hers. â€Å"He†¦he loves you.† She lifted her head and looked at me with mournful, glittering eyes. â€Å"He said he didn't love me the way he should – that he didn't love me the way I deserved. He said it'd be wrong to make me marry him, that we weren't meant to spend our lives together.† She took a tissue and wiped her nose, then her eyes grew wide with desperation. â€Å"What does that mean, Georgina? Why would he say he's making me marry him? I want to. I don't understand.† I looked over her and met Roman's eyes. We couldn't speak the way greater immortals could, but enough messages passed between us. Seth hadn't forced her to get engaged, no, but he'd done it out of guilt, guilt for cheating on her and continually being drawn to me when he believed it was better for us to stay apart. â€Å"He said he loved me,† Maddie continued. â€Å"But that I needed someone who loved me more – someone I was the world to. He said he'd only hurt me worse if we went on. How could it hurt worse?† The tears grew worse. She pulled away and buried her face in her hands. â€Å"It can't hurt worse than this. I want to die.† â€Å"No!† I said, drawing her back to me. â€Å"Don't say that. Don't ever say that!† â€Å"Georgina,† warned Roman softly. I realized I was shaking Maddie and immediately stopped. â€Å"Listen to me,† I said, turning her face toward mine. â€Å"You are an amazing person. You are one of the best people I know. You'll get over this†¦I swear it. I won't let you go through it alone, okay? And you deserve the best. If it's not him, then you'll get someone better.† The next words were hard for me. I should have rejoiced at this news. I wouldn't have to watch them together. I also had a feeling that I was somehow involved in this. What had she said? That Seth said she deserved to be someone's world? He'd told me I was his. In one of the dreams, he'd said that to her, but I now knew that was a lie. Still, I couldn't help it when I said, â€Å"And maybe†¦maybe if you guys talk more, you'll understand†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The sobs abated – just a little – as she gave me a puzzled look. â€Å"That's the thing. I can't.† â€Å"It may seem that way, but he's not totally unreasonable.† Why the hell was I playing devil's advocate here? Because Maddie was my friend, and I couldn't stand to see her hurting – and because I had also had my heart broken too many times. â€Å"Wait a couple days, then find him and see if you can have a, I don't know, productive dialogue. Maybe you can fix things.† Ugh. â€Å"Maybe you'll at least understand†¦understand his decision.† She shook her head. â€Å"But I can't find him. No one can. Georgina, he's disappeared.†