Banned From Talking About Banned Books Week

by talkbackty on Sep 27, 2011

This is another post in my series Zen and the Art of Teaching. You can see them all here.


I don't want to bury the lead: I was asked not to talk about Banned Books Week, and I obliged.


Now for the back story. I'm currently student teaching for four months outside of Boise, ID. I teach six classes of freshman U.S. History. However, the class is not mine. I have a mentor teacher who is technically in charge, regardless of which one of us is in front of the classroom on any given day.

In my class I use the white board for a lot of random things, rarely do they directly relate to teaching. I have a area dedicated to "things I need to look up," and an area called "random facts." In my first class of the day I decided to add another category, a list of the most commonly banned or challenged books in the United States last year to celebrate Banned Books Week.

Wondering what that list entailed? No problem, I copied it directly from this site

And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie
Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
Crank, by Ellen Hopkins
The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins
Lush, by Natasha Friend
What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones
Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Revolutionary Voices, edited by Amy Sonnie
Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer

Notably, The Hunger Games and Twilight stuck out to my students because the majority have either read or heard about them. I mentioned that this was just a list from 2010 and that some of their other favorite books, like Harry Potter, were often banned as well.

This lead to a short (less than 10 minute) discussion about why, where, and how books were banned. During this I mentioned that books were most commonly banned for sex or drug use- which from the list above you can see is correct.

That was all. I did not endorse any of the books (although I have endorsed The Hunger Games on other days) and I specifically stated that none of these books were required reading.

I posted them merely to entertain and create a discussion. Which it did.

Until I was asked not to do it again, and erase the list entirely.

Reasons given:
"We live in a conservative area." 
"I don't want parents to come in angry saying, 'You told my child to read this.'" 
"They are just freshman."

I did as requested. The list was erased. No more conversations were held about Banned Books Week.

The students are lesser because of it. Not only is it a great conversation to have about censorship and control and the role that different organizations play in our lives; but it allows students to express their thoughts on a topic that is centered around them.

I know sometimes my students can feel a disconnect to the historical topics we discuss in class. Yet, when I try to address a relevant and prevalent issue that involves people their age, I am censored.


Google Maps of Banned Books. View Book Bans and Challenges, 2007-2011 in a larger map. 


The entire purpose of Banned Books Week is to celebrate the freedom to read. It was started in 1982 and is organized by the American Library Association.

A movement that is aimed at creating a positive atmosphere where people of all ages can choose what they wish to read should be celebrated at every opportunity. I constantly hear today in classrooms about how terrible books are, how boring books are and how reading is stupid. If what it takes to interest a student in reading is to entice them by telling them the book was banned- I'm all for it.

I want my students to read banned books. I want them to read good books and bad books. I want them to read anything and everything they choose to. Because what I want most of all is for my students to read.

I was censored for talking about censorship.

I am angry and frustrated, mostly at myself, for not taking a stand on an important issue. As someone who aspires to teach children how to become adults, I am ashamed at my lack of ethical fortitude.

I can only hope and strive to be better.

Me: Marketing in the 21st Century

by talkbackty on Sep 24, 2011

"Hiding aspects of your personal life in order to get hired or attract more business is a shameful practice." -Steve Pavlina


Once again my posts begin with inspiration from another source. I started following Steve Pavlina on Google+ after he was recommended by Leo Babuta, also on Google+.

If you're not keeping track, that's three people that you went through to get the above quote. You went through me, I went through Leo, which lead me to Steve. The internet is wonderful. We are slowly moving towards becoming one...but today is not the day for my crazy awesome theories.

Today is a day for simplicity. That's what I find Steve Pavlina brings through his posts and comments on Google+. That quote above lead to numerous comments from Steve's followers, most driven by anger.

"Equally shameful are businesses that make hiring decisions based on said aspects of one's personal life."

"Will YOU hire me? Will someone you know hire me? Should I lessen my chances at any job by being completely honest about things that are completely irrelevant to the performance of that job? ESPECIALLY knowing that at least half of the 100+ other people trying to fill that position are going to lie through their teeth and get away with it to get that job?"

"Keeping some parts of my life or personality private doesn't make me feel like I'm compromising anything."

I latched on to some of the concepts Steve was talking about. Most importantly, the profile picture* on my various social networks.


Steve's point (and the one I agree with) is that people are not interested in your brand or your marketing campaign, in fact they probably never were...it was just all we've had for so long. What they are interested in is you, and they want to see you when they interact through social media.

My philosophy was to brand as many things as I could: The podcast needed artwork. We got that...now spread the artwork as fast and as broadly as possible. Every thing you do should be connected to that artwork. Twitter, artwork. Google+, artwork. iTunes, artwork. Anywhere they go the costumer should be able to see and recognize the artwork.

Sound familiar? It should. It's the marketing strategy of every major company including Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Nike.

My new philosophy? I'm not Wal-Mart and you're not a faceless consumer. In the age of the internet you should be interested not in the brand, but the source. I'm the source, and I need to stop hiding behind the brand.

The 21st century has already fostered more growth in a decade than the 20th century fostered in a hundred years. On September 11th, 2001 every single news internet site crashed from overwhelming page views. Today, Facebook serves 750 million people across the world. There are over 170 million tweets sent per day. Every smartphone available now is hundreds of times more powerful than a 90's computer.

In this supercharged world it's easy to tune things out. Branding only makes tuning something out easier. But when you know that there's a person behind the brand; a person who works hard, thinks creatively and interacts with you individually...that is hard to ignore.

I'm changing all the Twitter profiles to include a picture of me. Not a cartoon. Not a brand. Just me. Simple.




That's how I plan on marketing in the 21st century.

I hate lawns...and you should too

by talkbackty on Sep 18, 2011


I hate lawns.

Possibly more than I've ever hated any other thing.

This is partly because I just finished mowing my own lawn and partly because lawns are so damn pointless. (I live in a rented home, where I can't landscape).

They do not feed us. They are not great at converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. They are incredibly taxing on the environment to maintain.

Turf grass (that's your lawn) is America's largest crop; we produce three times more of it than corn. We use about a third of our potable drinking water to maintain our turf grass, and about 70 million pounds of pesticides to keep it alive.

Because nature wants turf grass to die.

Because it is pointless.

What should be in our yards are gardens. Filled with a wide array of plants including- you probably saw this coming- fruits and vegetables. We'd eat better, create more oxygen to breath, and while it wouldn't solve the water issue, it would be a more efficient use of our water; and we'd save money on resources used to transport fruits and vegetables because now they are grown in your yard.

None of this is likely to happen because we, as a society, are obsessed with what other people think. And your neighbors would think you were crazy if you pulled out your lawn and planted a garden. One woman even got arrested for it.

I'm not a fan of doing things because everyone else does them. That's why...

I hate lawns and you should too.

This is a funnier, more articulate version of what I just said. Nerdfighters!

Zen and the Art of Teaching

by talkbackty on Sep 9, 2011

This is the beginning of a big idea. I wanted to get my thoughts out now because they are still fresh in my mind, but tune in often to see me continue this series.


It all starts with my post on The Energy of People. Which was influenced by Jay Mohr (@jaymohr37). The basic concept is that people all give off certain energies and it is the job of the teacher (or in Mohr's case, comedian) to manipulate those energies to achieve the desired result.


"...and that's why the chicken crossed the road."
As I go about teaching it becomes more and more apparent to me how similar teaching is to stand-up comedy. I perform a routine every day. Sometimes it's four 10 minute bits with 5 minute breaks in between. Sometimes it's an hour and half, non-stop, Dave Chappelle at the laugh factory, crazy train. I stand up and do these routines 3 times a day, twice a week, and then I write new material for the next two days. Then the performance starts all over again. (To explain, our school uses an A/B schedule. I teach 6 classes, 3 each day. Hope that makes sense.)

Ultimately, it's all about those energies my students are giving off, and how I manipulate that energy. How I use it to make them laugh, to focus them, to quiet them, to get them to share something. But what is the most important part of this energy-manipulating equation?

Me.

It starts with knowing myself. Knowing my own energy. Knowing who I am. In order to feel this energy and take it in, change it, then deliver it back out- I need to be at peace. I need to be zen.

Athletes call this being in the zone. Ken Robinson calls this the element. The book I'm stealing this blog entry's title from, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, calls it Quality. Both are talking about the same thing; being in an environment where you are comfortable, knowledgeable and capable of producing results. When you get to point where "work" doesn't feel like work. It feels like creation.

I'm not perfect yet. Far from it, but I love going into the classroom to work towards perfection. There are moments where I tap into it. Great, wonderful, perfect moments that artists always hope for when things just flow.

One of these moments happened today. It was my second day of giving the same lesson (remember, A/B schedule), and so I was already feeling like a comedian who had worked out his material the day before. The lesson was regarding the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon. The textbook mentioned that he is often remembered for failing to find the fountain of youth. Near the end of class a student raised their hand and asked, "Why would someone be remembered for failing to find something?"

There's a bunch of different possible responses to that. It's Friday, with 5 minutes left in class. I could blow it off- "Because the text wanted something interesting to write about." I could dismiss it- "I don't really know."

Perhaps I would have given one of those answers if I had been feeling anything other than perfectly calm, in my element, zen.

I looked to my right, stared at a student for a few seconds who was talking to a neighbor until he quieted down. Now the class is silent, all attention on me. It's my audience to win over or lose completely.

"Why would someone be remembered for failing to find something? Good question. No, great question... I think it is because of the time period that had come just before. These explorers are sailing only a few generations after the dark ages; a time of decay and disgust. A time when there was no growth in culture or art or science. A time where someone was born, lived and died without ever traveling more than 25 miles from their home."

"Then come these explorers. They tell stories of lands so vast it fills the whole skyline from end to end. They tell stories of strange new people, and of riches so plentiful they make kings and queen look like beggars. They tell stories of cities made of gold and mythical fountains that can let you live forever."

"I think we remember these people because it doesn't always matter if you find what you are looking for. After times of darkness, sometimes the most important thing you can do is tell someone a story that gives them hope."

Bell rings. Class dismissed.

In a world where we are so often told that work is just a device to make us money; I think it is important to find something that you can do in your own element.

I think I've found mine, and I know that every day it's exciting to go back in and find myself in that zone of peace and serenity where words, and concepts, and laughter all flow effortlessly.

It's either that, or I'll try my hand at stand up comedy.

Thanks for reading. Love you all.


This is the first post in my Zen and the Art of Teaching series. Check out the second post here.

The Future of Entertainment: A Red State Story

by talkbackty on Sep 3, 2011


This post spawned directly from my review of Red State. A better question is why? Why did one specific movie review lead to this post which is far more broad in scope and scale? I've seen many movies and none of the others inspired me to write about the changing of an industry or consumer demand. So why Red State?

Because Red State should change the world.

I say should and not did only because it seems to be taking a little longer than I, personally, would like it to. This is because the movement is lead by a man who gave the middle finger to entertainment media, and any time you choose to do things in a non-traditional route it's going to take some time.

Here's what Red State did. When it premiered at Sundance Kevin Smith promised an auction for the rights to his movie, which is very traditional. Where Mr. Smith broke the mold is when he allowed only one bid on the movie rights...his own bid...for $20. Then he caused wave upon wave by saying that he didn't need the traditional marketing/distributing companies and was planning on distributing the movie by himself.

He also protested
This is a review for some but new information for others: Companies spend way to much money marketing movies. For a film like Red State, that had a $4 million budget, marketing costs would have probably been in the $10-15 million dollar range. I'm dead serious. A distributing company would have spent more than twice the cost of the movie just to advertise it.

The worst part is that niche-films rarely have the audience to make up for those kinds of cost at the box-office. Then they are deemed a failure when they don't make more than $20 million dollars in a weekend. This happens all the time. (Most recently to Our Idiot Brother starring Paul Rudd).

Mr. Smith realized this and did the only sane thing...he told everyone else they were insane.

Why should he subject his movie, his artwork, to another declared failure when he could do it a different way and be more financially successful?

The crazy thing: He already has his money back. Every single cent that Red State makes on VOD (video on demand), on DVD/Blu Ray or at select theaters is profit. Before Red State was even released to a general audience, it had recouped it's cost.

How did Mr. Smith do this? He kept costs low and took the film around to select theaters where his own fans paid a premium to see the film and his Q&A.

I know, baffling concept. A director went around and showed off his work to people he knew were fans. Instead of paying millions and millions of dollars to get a few extra asses in seats opening weekend, Mr. Smith just said, "No thanks, I don't need to do that."

It worked because Mr. Smith understands something that others don't. Different movies work for different audiences in different places. Putting every movie through the same cookie cutter doesn't work.
Harry Potter 7 premiere

Here's the top ten highest grossing movies of all time. A pretty good barometer of what is "popular" in the United States.

  1. Avatar
  2. Titanic
  3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
  4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
  5. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
  6. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
  7. Toy Story 3
  8. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
  9. Alice in Wonderland
  10. The Dark Knight

All pretty predictable. No real surprises. Now here's a list of the top ten rentals from Netflix. Also a pretty good barometer of what is "popular" in the United States.

  1. Crash (2004)
  2. The Blind Side (2009)
  3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
  4. The Bucket List (2008)
  5. The Departed (2006)
  6. The Hurt Locker (2008)
  7. Iron Man (2008)
  8. Sherlock Holmes (2009)
  9. No Country for Old Men (2007)
  10. Gran Torino (2008)

WHAT!?! Not one of the highest grossing movies is on the Netflix list. Are people insane? Don't they realize the superior quality of Transformers: Dark of the Moon?!? It made over a billion dollars!

That's about all the proof I need to know that different movies work for different audiences in different places. Movie theaters are great for watching things explode or seeing the crazy visuals of Avatar, but that doesn't always translate when people are at home.

Red State was never going to be in the Top Ten Box Office numbers, but a distributing company would have marketed it the same way; by throwing copious amounts of money trying to attract more and more people. By choosing a desired "target audience" and overplaying the generalities they believe that audience wants.

Sex to young men. Romance to young women. Goofy antics of middle-aged people to middle-aged people who don't have goofy antics. Intellect to...never mind, no movie gets marketed as an intellectual experience.

I like unrealistic women

I like unrealistic men

I like unrealistic versions of myself
Red State should change the world of entertainment. People should look at what Mr. Smith has done and realize that different movies can be distributed in different fashions. Fans will pay to see movies they want to see, but even more so if it is available in a fashion they are comfortable with.


What's more comfortable than having a movie streamed directly to your computer, Xbox, or PS3 and watching it from your own couch? Not much in my book.

Different movies play to different audiences in different places. Mr. Smith tailored the distribution to best fit the people he thought would enjoy Red State. He listened to the people whom he respects, his own fans.

Another baffling concept. Listening AND responding to the people who are actually interested in your work.
The best Web 2.0-ers. Look at those ears.
That's Web 2.0. Skipping over the unneeded middle men and going directly to the source. Being responsible to the fan by communicating directly with the fans.

Mr. Smith took advantage of all the different mediums now available to us as consumers. Red State can be watched on iTunes, Xbox, PS3 or YouTube. It can be watched by anyone who wants to watch it in the comfort of their own home. And it should change how the world consumes, interacts and views entertainment.

At least I hope it does.




Red State Review

by talkbackty on Sep 2, 2011

"What? What the heck is Red State? It's not playing in any theater and I've never heard of it."

That's because Red State is being distributed differently, which will be the topic of my next post. It is now available through a variety of VOD (video on demand) options including, but not limited to; Sony PlayStation, Amazon.com, iTunes, Blockbuster.com ,YouTube, Microsoft: XBOX: ZUNE ,VUDU (the Walmart platform), Sonic/Cinema Now.

The movie will also be run in theaters around the country. Check the details for a showing near your area. Currently, it also is scheduled to play at the New Beverly in Los Angles weekly.

Don't like reading? Excellent, because we just finished a TalkBack Spoilercast on Red State.


Red State is a film written, directed and edited by Kevin Smith (@thatkevinsmith). If you didn't know that already then maybe you should check out this post regarding the distribution, production, and controversy behind Mr. Smith's latest film.

The movie stars an excellent cast including Michael Parks as Abin Cooper, Melissa Leo as Sarah Cooper and John Goodman as ATF Agent Keenan. The supporting cast is also a talented group and you will probably recognize a few faces from TV or other movies.

Abin Cooper is a pastor modeled after the infamous Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. His large, dedicated family fill the pews of his chapel located within his own house. He preaches a hyper-right wing platform about the wickedness of America, and how all sinners should be dealt with through righteous damnation (read kidnapping people and executing them on a cross).

After the abduction of a few local town boys goes poorly, the ATF arrives and all hell breaks loose. 

There's your synopsis.

Let's not bury the lead anymore. Michael Parks is haunting, convincing, terrifying, bone-chilling, and propels the viewer through the movie. He's so damn good that Mr. Smith followed the Academy rules of distributing a movie in order to insure that Parks was at least considered. Mr. Smith also believes some of the other actors have shots at nominations (Leo and Goodman) but I'm convinced Michael Parks is the only one who is truly breathtaking.
coopersdell.com
Don't get me wrong, it is a strong cast; and Goodman, in particular, does a fantastic job as lead ATF agent. Maybe it's just that Parks is so far beyond everyone else he's casting a shadow over the actor's otherwise good performances.

The strength of the cast is why I liked the film so much and why it earns one of my highest compliments: Red State is entirely re-watchable. This isn't a movie you can watch once and say, “I got it.” This is a movie you want to see a second time shortly after it ends because you're left saying, "Damn, did all that just happen?"

It doesn't fit the traditional mold for a horror movie, or any movie-mold for that matter. I missed the hey-day of horror during the seventies and eighties. All I ever got from the "horror" genre was copious amounts of gore and a couple of scenes with topless girls. So forgive my classification, but I don't think this is a horror movie. Does it have gore, you bet, but within the realms of the story. When someone gets shot in the face, their face comes off. Realism is all I got, and that was appreciated.

Perhaps, when Mr. Smith labeled this film a horror movie he was imagining what horror films used to be, not what they have devolved into. There are definite elements of the horror genre but at the end of the day I classify this as a drama.

coopersdell.com
Regardless of how it's labeled on Netflix, it is a short film by any measure. At 88 minutes, the movie is tight and the pacing is well done. I've heard complaints that the speech by Parks' Cooper mid-way through the film is too long, but for me it was simply captivating.

The run time is also the films' Achilles' heel. Mr. Smith was proud of his editing skills during this movie's production. (He edited the film simultaneously throughout the movie, meaning he went to set-directed, and then came home and edited). Granted, that is a feat that is rarely, if ever, accomplished on a film this size. In all honesty, I would have loved to have more background on all the characters, but especially some of the supporting characters whose deaths often felt sudden and their character arc short-changed.

Is it perfection? No. However, Red State is a whole lot of fun, vulgarity and violence with a helping of Michael Parks. I can't overstate this guy enough...he's amazing. The movie is a great watch and probably a great re-watch for most everyone out there.

TalkBack Grade: B+
MPAA Rating: R