The experience of reading Wallace’s essay documenting the Maine Lobster Festival is a weird and often uncomfortable ride through the event. This is the second time I have been able to read this essay for a class assignment. The first time I encountered this monster of an essay was while I was abroad in Sydney, Australia, where this one one of two pieces by American writers that were discussed as a class. Reading it a second time made me realize just how much I love this article, and why it works well as an essay even though it does not necessarily reflect the content matter of the magazine it was published in (Gourmet).

Depending on the event, oftentimes reading event coverage can become boring and cumbersome, with the essay writer only highlighting the “good” details of their time there and just how much fun everyone else around them is having. Wallace however does not do any of this. It is made present at the very start of the essay that he has no desire to go to the Maine Lobster Festival, and does not understand why his girlfriend and parents were enjoying the festival when he was slowly dying inside by being there.

I also thought that it was interesting that he described the actual eating of the lobster at the festival as a somewhat disgusting and cheap act, especially considering the conception that lobster is “fancy” food. The vivid detail and incredibly long sentence that takes up half of the paragraph allows Wallace to convey the absolute chaos that he is seeing in the eating tent. I like this scene in particular because it makes you use all of your senses to imagine the events he is describing.

Another part that I found both intriguing and funny in a messed up kind of way is the section where Wallace describes how to cook/kill a lobster, getting a little existential about the fact if the lobster is able to feel pain. A point that supports this section also involves Wallace’s descriptive way of how the lobsters attempt to escape their boiling prison.

Overall Wallace’s essay displays the potential there is when reporting or researching something that appears normal or commonplace. Through the essay Wallace chooses to show the audience the “brutality” of the Maine Lobster Festival, even if everyone else around him is having fun.

After reading both Paul Graham’s “The Age of the Essay” and Taylor Reinhart’s “STAND UP COMEDY AND THE ESSAY, AKA LOUIS C.K. MEET MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE,” a few things have become apparent to me.

One thing is that both essays show that they can be written by anyone, whether you are a computer scientist like Graham or a comedian like Reinhart. Essays are just reserved for the academic, but also to allow anyone to research and explore an idea, asking both themselves and their audience how to find the answer to their question. Another thing that connected both essays was that both, in their own ways talk about the use of ‘surprise’ in essays. Graham’s essay outlines the essential steps that a essay written in the digital age must take, one of which is having a quintessential “element of surprise.” Though this element is not necessarily an actual surprise, as it is more in the vein of the reader being surprised about where the essay will be taking them. In Reinhart’s essay, the element of surprise that I enjoyed the most was at the very beginning, where they are telling the story about the the kid that they used to know who ended up shooting the dog. While reading this I waited for the punchline, but there didn’t seem to be one even though Reinhart explains this joke gets one of the biggest laughs. This surprise isn’t necessarily about the dog that was killed, the emphasis instead is narrowed into the surprise that the killer kid plays within the joke, and the overall idea that this kind of thing could be considered a “funny joke.”

Both essays, in their own ways express to a newer audience how to successfully write an essay in the age where media and internet have taken over the population, and display that essay writing is not reserved for academic analysis, but also for personal expression and exploration.

I found the Summers’ reading both thought provoking and intriguing. I liked the way that Summer’s describes the experiences of women in the world of skin care, as well as her own, especially since she is older. In particular, the main focus of the essay being that beauty and skin care is close to a religion (or a cult) was something that I never really thought much about.

An important point that Summers touched on is the part that social media plays into the entire situation, and how it possibly adds on to the female anxiety of aging and looking old. The idea of the “pretty privilege” is also a very important point made by Summers, and even adds on to the anxiety felt by women who are older, as “good” skin is akin to young skin. Summers also brings up the economic aspect of this mindset, and how it plays into the capitalism of the beauty industry. A few of these important points include that it is in general more profitable to be younger, or even look younger.

I think that the final thought brought up by Summers really hits home for the audience of the essay, as well as sums up the agenda of the beauty industry has aimed toward women who are older, because what happens when you don’t recognize who you are in your own skin?

First let me say that this article took me on one wild ride, and I was not expecting to read the story that I did. The original article, written by Wells Tower tells an incredible tale about conspiracy theories, a feud, and a failed plot to kill Obama. Though it sounds like an extremely complicated series of events, Tower retells it with ease and little to no confusion, (except a really subplot with the undertaker/representative in his funeral home).

I think that this is considered a “successful essay” for a number of reasons. For one thing, both the title and the cover illustration drew me into reading more about this crazy true story. Having both an intriguing title and cover image are important draw factors for “successful essays,” and in this case both work hand in hand to pull readers down the rabbit hole that the essay falls down. Another aspect of the essay that really worked in its favor was the that the overall essay was funny, and it was clear where the author’s own commentary shown through in the subsequent footnotes scattered along the length of the story. The humor felt right given the ridiculous tone of the story. The third aspect of the essay that worked in its favor was the story-like aspect that the author used to tell the events. Tower incorporates quotes from both feuding men into dialogue within the “story” and the vivid scene descriptions also add to create the world that the reader is put in.

I think that the readers of Longform liked this essay because even though it is ultimately a story about the president’s attempted assassination, the actual details of the event are what make the essay such a captivating read. I think that Longform readers saw that the essay exhibited an unique story and storytelling technique, and those factors combined are what made it a “successful essay.”  

Elizabeth Royte’s essay about male cruisers and sex trash in her local park was an…interesting read to say the least. While the essay does, at points stray away from her main topic of choice (the remnants of forest sexacpades) Royte does relate everything back to the “main plot” of the article. I think that the “surprise” of the essay was her own experiences that Royte had with trash, seeing her “obsession” with it grow into something that is now an unconscious part of her.

The essay was posted by Royte on Medium, which could be described as the sleeker version of WordPress (which is ironic since this response is posted on WordPress). Royte is able to use the platform of Medium and use it to her advantage to make her essay more effective.

The most noticeable aspect (to me at least) that she took advantage of in her essay was the use of visuals. To be more specific, Royte was able to use pictures that she (or maybe a member of her litter squad) took in the woods whilst cleaning up to break up her essay. Each picture was accompanied by scrollable text overtop, and acted as both a way for Royte to use her narrating voice in a thought/comment that was outside of the larger narrative as well as for her to easily transition through the various topics of the essay. While this is a clever technique that she took advantage of, I personally did not enjoy it while reading. The problem that I had with it was that it distracted me from the larger narrative that she was telling, and forced me to look at the blurred out picture in order to continue to read on (unless that was your plan all along Elizabeth…well played.)

Along with the header-esque pictures, Royte also employs the use of other visual media, such as pictures of litter that I am assuming she has found (condoms, lube, and mouthwash, to name a few). Three out of the four pictures used by Royte are accompanied by a statistic related to littering. The fourth picture is somewhat of an outlier, with its statistic relating to the behaviours of gay men. Even though they are not connected by the same type of statistic, they all contain information to the narrative that Royte is relating in her essay. I like that she didn’t incorporate the statistics into the larger “plot” of the essay, as I think that it would detract from the personal anecdotes that she is relating, as well her thoughts as a whole on the act of cruisers leaving behind their personal remains.

At the end of the day, I really enjoyed Royte’s unusual essay. While there were a few techniques used that I disagreed with, Royte’s use of Medium’s platform made her essay maintain an important factor: It was very easy to read and become involved in her story. Her use of pictures aided her immensely, and I think that a majority of her story needed to have the visual aspect of them there for the reader.

After listening to Space by Radiolab, there are a few things that would benefit from being “borrowed.” The first is the way that music and ambiance noise are used over recorded interviews. The combination of these elements together aids in painting a vivid visual image for the listener, as well as setting the general mood for the segment that the interview appears in. Another stylistic element that I would like to “borrow” for my group’s podcast is to include normally difficult statistics presented in such a way that they are easy for the listener to understand, as well as interesting to really think about.

A research element of the podcast that would be important for our podcast would be to have a good mix of both primary and secondary sources. This podcast in particular really utilizes primary sources such as interviews to create a wealth of knowledge for the listening audience. Another research element of the Radiolab podcast that would be nice to have in ours is the ability to share personal and touching stories connected to the topic/people that are being investigated, such as the romantic side story about Carl Sagan and his wife.

The 21st century has been known as the era of innovation, with technology as we know it advancing leaps and bounds before our eyes. While this advancement has been widely associated with phones and computers, it has also bled its way into the smoking industry. Methods of smoking alone have come a long way with the inventions of e-cigarettes and vaporizers, but no method has become as viral as the Juul.

Debuting in 2015, the small vaporizer has gone viral, and has appeared frequently on social media platforms popular with teens and young adults. This is an interesting fact since, according to the creators of Juul, it is intended for adults who already practice a smoking habit. A study conducted by Stanford Research about the impact of various tobacco advertisements found that the marketing between Juul’s 2015 launch and the fall of 2018 was incredibly oriented towards a younger audience. More importantly, the company that created Juul hired various instagram influencers as well as creating hashtags (ex. #juul, #switchtojuul, etc.) people could use to further promote the product.

Juul’s social media campaign was halted in 2018, but that has not stopped the virality of Juul, as it can still be seen in social media videos (RIP Vine) as well as becoming its own meme of sorts. According to researchers, the damage has been done, with the numbers of youth use of vaping and e-cigarettes skyrocketing in the recent years.

Smoking has been a staple in both movies and Hollywood since the early days of “talking pictures.” While the act of smoking has become much more controversial, due to the now known dangers associated with it, cigarettes and other smoking methods are still seen in movies and television today. Most of what is shown to us on the silver screen is a product of “movie magic,” but what exactly are actors and actresses inhaling when their character decides to “light it up”?

Herbal Alternatives

The most popular and commonly seen alternative to normal cigarettes are those of an herbal variety. The two biggest industry providers of these herbal alternatives are Ecstacy Cigarettes and Honeyrose Cigarettes. So what exactly goes into an “herbal cigarette”? According to Ecstacy, the list of ingredients for their herbal cigs includes: Marshmallow Leaf, Rose Petals, Red Clover, Clove Powder, Liquorice, Wild Lettuce, Sage, Apple Juice, Honey, Acetic Acid and Vanilla Liquid. And absolutely no traces of nicotine or tar like normal cigarettes.

Prop masters for film and T.V., especially those working on era specific projects, turn to these cigarettes because of their absence of nicotine, even creating their own packaging for cartons seen on screen.

The the actors on AMC’s hit show, Mad Men, smoked a total of 942 herbal cigarettes on screen over the course of seven seasons. All of the cigarettes and joints seen in the show were Ecstacy brand herbal mixes, making them a little more healthy for the cast to smoke (sidebar: although smoking, no matter what it is, is EXTREMELY bad for you).

Fake Weed

Continuing with our talk of herbal alternatives, we come to our next replacement for smoking: Fake Weed. Also known as “legal bud” artificial weed is another common alternative in lieu of actors smoking the real thing. Most famously used in the movie Pineapple Express, fake weed was obtained by prop masters through a company called International Oddities. “Legal bud” is a mixture of dried leaves, herbs, and sometimes dye that are made to simulate the look of real marijuana. While the mix won’t give you a “true” high like the real stuff, actors like Drew Barrymore who have used the alternative did claim experiencing some feeling of being stoned.

The Real Deal

Although there are several alternatives out there, some movies (and actors) choose to use the real thing. Cigars seen on screen in particular are often real. This is mainly due to the fact that creating herbal versions of stogis are difficult, as they do not very much resemble traditional cigars. Even with the introduction of e-cigars/cigarettes, which offer non-smoking actors a safe alternative, many actors with cigar smoking characters smoke in real life. One example is Australian actor Hugh Jackman, who brings his love for cigars to his comic book role of Wolverine. Actor turned Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also has an affinity for smoking cigars, and can be seen doing so in Predator.

When doing research or investigation of any kind, the first thing you will always need is a question. But what exactly makes a good question? Writer Chris How posted the basic ingredients that, when combined, create a “good” question. How explains that the essential factors are: ends in a question mark, has a purpose and actionable insight, creates a conversation,  is neutral and bias free, interesting, short, and finally, is able to be answered. Keeping these factors in mind, I listened to two very different podcasts that dealt with the same topic, artificial laugh tracks.

Anyone who has ever watched television has come into contact with the controversial laugh track. The two podcasts that I listened to on the subject, Decoder Ring and Radiolab, may have talked about the same thing (in this case, laugh tracks) but both had different methods of approach. Decoder Ring took the subject of laugh tracks from an investigative perspective, choosing to ask the question “What happened to Laugh Tracks?,” and delving into the history of the creation and the decline of its use in contemporary television. Radiolab on the other hand chose to ask the question “how does laughing affect us?” and explain the history of “professional laughers,” who would be hired and placed in live studio audiences, and then ending with a brief explanation how laugher is able to use certain sounds to manipulate us.

When applying How’s factors to these podcasts, it’s easy to see that both are asking a question that ends in a question mark, as well as a purpose that drives it. Both are also actionable open a conversation on the topic, this is seen especially in the various interviews that occur across the two podcasts. The questions that are being asked are also neutral and do not exhibit any form of bias from the creator. The two different questions are also thought provoking. Decoder Ring’s is asking why the laugh track disappeared, opening up to the bigger conversation of why it is so disliked by people in the television industry. Radiolab’s question is interesting in the fact that you would not normally think about the question of what effects laughter has on a person. I would consider these short questions, as they are rather to the point and employ the basic, ‘who, what, why, etc.’ method.

Finally, and most important of all, these two questions were able to be answered in their respective podcasts. Whether the answers are satisfying are up to the personal preference of the listener, but all in all, even though they are answering different things about laugh tracks, the questions these podcasts are asking can be qualified as “good” questions.