"So no one told you life (narratives) was (were) gonna be this way..."

Friends is a good example of the Presentist narrative that Rushkoff discusses in the first chapter, “narrative collapse”, in Present Shock. Friends does not truly have the traditional narrative that Rushkoff explains in the text, “there is plot-there are many plots- but there is no overarching story, no end. There are so many plots, in fact, that an ending tying everything up seems inconceivable, even beside the point” (Rushkoff 34). I recently started watching the show from the beginning, so I can relate quite easily with the point that Rushkoff makes. First of all, beginning with season one episode one of Friends, the storyline starts off in medias res. At least at the start, you don’t know who this group of ridiculous friends are and you don’t really know how they even came about to be friends in the first place. There is a point to this. The show was not made to make people ponder life or want to keep hitting “next episode” on netflix. Rather, its purpose is to entertain with a hysterical group of dorky friends when someone wishes to be amused. The “middle” of the TV series goes against Rushkoff’s traditional sense of a story arc because each friend has their own lives away from their time together in the “Central Perk” coffee shop below their apartment. Each friend has a job, dates, other friends, and other life events that do not always connect with one another. I can’t really speak of the end, since I am only on season 4, but if it’s anything like How I Met Your Mother, it will be horrible, make me cry, and leave a bunch of questions unanswered.

Nearly every episode of  Friends is the same dang thing every time, yet some how the lively  show has me totally hooked. However ,as hard as it is for me to admit it, there is no real point to the story line or the characters within it. Rather, it is the atmosphere created by both of those things that appeals to the viewers (no, it is not a hit tv show just because of Jennifer Aniston’s tendency to look like a total goddess). This atmosphere is created as one watches various episodes of the show, it is not given to you in bits rather than all at one, creating less depth to the show. Rushkoff says that the result of this rather flat tactic is that “Narrativity is replaced by something more like putting together  a puzzle by making connections and recognizing patterns” (Rushkoff 34). This puzzling technique replaces the linear storytelling. There is no mystery or other phenomena to be solved or resolved in Friends.

The show is not concerned of what will happen in the future, but rather with what is happening right at a particular moment. Rushkoff notes that there have been stories that are anticlimactic but still considered a traditional narrative. He says the difference is that the character would “always have the next day” to become wiser (Rushkoff 32) whereas in presentist narratives, time sped up and ruined that. The characters in Friends end up facing the same present shock as the creators of the television show because they just wake up in a random situation and have to figure out what is going on.

Rushkoff talks about the “CNN effect” and how it draws an immediate response from what he calls “always-on news”. I think that this can be drawn into his ideas of the narrative collapse within television shows and particularly, Friends. The show aims to get a quick and simple response from the people watching at home. As many of you know, the creators made the show to be comedic. So, the goal is not to make someone contemplate what next big thing will happen in the episodes to come, but rather to make them laugh and move on to the next episode.

Rushkoff, Douglas. Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now. New York: Penguin, 2013. Print.

It's the Hemingway or the Highway

          If I had to describe Hemingway’s style in one word, I would have to characterize it as “inconsistent”. He goes from using long sentences to short ones, literal language to figurative. Another inconsistency is his treatment of time in A Moveable Feast. I think that it is because of these stylistic irregularities that we read Hemingway in the first place. His unique style is what makes him such a renowned author, it obviously wasn’t the “oh so intriguing” plot my friends. Throughout the novel, Hemingway brings the reader through parts of his life with important people and places that impacted his career as a journalist and eventually an author. Often times, Hemingway wouldn’t even put these events and introductions to new people in order, simply because that is not the point he is trying to make. This tactic might seem nutty, but come on; it’s Hemingway for Pete’s sake. Because Hemingway goes about it in this way, form absolutely does not follow content. If it did, content would play an important role in how Hemingway’s form is expressed. Hemingway doesn’t want the readers to be using the content to explain the form; rather he wants us to use the form to create our own content. Hemingway’s tone of uncertainty encourages the reader to paint their own personal pictures in their heads. For example, Hemingway will leave parts of the plot for the reader’s interpretation, “It was only Zelda’s secret that she shared with me, as a hawk might share something with a man. But hawks do not share.” The reader is left unsure of the secret and is responsible for interpreting what Hemingway meant by the hawk comparison. Hemingway may seem like just a crazy guy, but that alone couldn’t have gotten him the success that he achieved. A Moveable Feast is considered a memoir but I think that it is more of a journal type genre; it was almost as if Hemingway took snippets of his life (very detail-oriented ones at that) and compiled them into one big story telling session.