reading is fun!

i really wished i read more. i used to read a lot in elementary school. the number of books you can read were the instagram likes of my childhood. my friends and i would bring 5 books to school at a time to show off. now looking back on it, we were kinda crazy for books. one of my friends, dylan, would max out the number of books you can borrow at one time: 30.

what happened to the reading craze?

while i was cleaning my room, i found all my schoolwork from elementary school and i threw away pretty much everything except one thing. in 5th grade, we had to log in our reading and had a monthly goal of 400 pages and i read 2099... that's a lot. this reading log required me to log in the date, the title of the book, the author, and number of pages read. in this month of november 2013, i read a total of 13 books. t h i r t e e n?? last year, my new year's resolution was to read 10 books outside of school and i read 7... reading 13 books in 23 days is insane. according to the log, for the most part, i would read a book a day (some took 2 days). now, i complain about reading 20 pages a night, which makes me kinda sad to think about. if 10 year old me can read 202 pages in one day, 15 year old me should be able to read one 20 page chapter. to be fair, i was reading geronimo stilton (aka a lot of pictures).

although i stopped reading for pleasure regularly, i still read (sometimes). and like my little self, i still like reading books in one sitting. if it's a book i'm interesting in, i will not put it down until i'm down reading it. i think that's how my procrastination sprouted...by reading instead of anything else. last year on multiple occasions, i would read a 200 or 300 page book on a school night. how you ask? well i didn't finish ANY of my homework, walked around the house reading it, ate dinner with it, sat in my bath towel reading it, and went to sleep at 1 in the morning... so yeah that's how.

two weeks ago was spring break, and my family and i went to texas. right before we left for the airport, i looked at my bookshelf and picked a book a friend recommended to me and shoved it in my backpack. in my head i was like "yeah i am not going to read this bc i always bring books on vacation and never read em". then i head to the airport and surprise, i started reading it and liking it. i was about halfway this 300 page book after my 2 hour flight to los angeles. now on my 4 hour flight to houston, i finished it and it was just so good, i started reading it again. and for the first 5 days of the trip, i read this book six times. yeah, i really liked it. i also made my parents drive me to different book stores to check if the sequel was there and no hope. then i finally made the desperate decision to buy the e book on my dad's iPad. the last two days of the trip, i read the sequel three times. now that i'm writing this, i sound a little crazy. but seriously if you like dystopian novels, read stung by bethany wiggins.

fun fact: i got glasses in third grade because i was reading in the dark when i was supposed to be asleep. now my vision is getting worse because i am on my phone in the dark when i am supposed to be asleep. just imagine how much smarter i would be if i read instead of going on my phone.


 some of my elementary school faves 

tarte, plz pay for my vacation

in the recent years, i have noticed that companies has taken sponsorship to a whole new level of smart, especially makeup companies. instead of paying beauty "gurus"/"vloggers" thousands of dollars to talk about how fabulous their new lipstick line is, why not just send them free lipsticks for them to open in front of their hundreds of thousands of viewers? makeup companies send out pr (public relations) packages to basically promote their products to youtubers' viewers, which i find really smart because 1) it's not direct in the way they just sit and talk about how amazing the product is for five minutes and 2) people LOVE other people unboxing mail packages. companies have been stepping up their pr game to the point where all the makeup is packaged in an over the top, bright pink, blue, and purple, box shaped into a pineapple and when you open it, confetti and money rains from it. ok, not really, but that's seriously what it feels like when i'm watching these videos. everything is just so aesthetically pleasing to look at. i don't even wear makeup but i want to buy their product? i mean that's good advertising.

what's even better than receiving free makeup is getting a free vacation to a tropical island. a makeup brand i never heard of is spending bank to bring groups of 50 youtubers on luxurious vacations and has made their way to one of the top makeup brands from doing this. #trippinwithtarte has become so relevant in the beauty side of youtube. basically tarte would pay for everyone's vacation (everything included (yes even the private jets with #trippinwithtarte painted on the side and embroidered on neck pillows). once they reached bora bora, youtubers would film their whole experience showing off all the free makeup and custom accessories laying on the beds of their 5 star, over the water cabana hotel rooms.

makeup companies like tarte has come up a brilliant way to advertise their brand that actually works for their focus group: young people who watch beauty videos on youtube. it is crazy how creative companies get to make their product popular. now, i kinda wish i was a beauty vlogger, then maybe i can ride a private jet to the maldives for free.

girls vs boys *toy ad edition*

lately, i have been watching a lot of nickelodeon, a channel i never really watched when i was younger. but i did watch the kids' channel qubo. i noticed how the ads for kid audiences seem to have very similar templates and style of execution. when it comes to toys, most toys seem to be similar to the ones 7 years ago. same barbies, nerf guns, play doh, really wack electronic skateboards/ripsticks. i am also still surprised about how genders play a role in toy ads. i don't think there should be gender specified toys and i thought that idea would have died down as the years went by. but commercials for "boy toys" are still aggressive and fast paced with this male narrator (whose voice hasn't changed in the past decade) yelling. meanwhile, commercials for "girl toys" are still very pink and are usually girls singing in the background while teen girls dressed to look younger are playing with the toys.

this is an ad i've seen so much recently, and it is for "shopkins lil secret lockets". it is obvious that it is geared towards young girls because of the girls singing in the background, girls playing with the toys, and the excessive amount of the color pink. i think the producers used the need for affiliation. there were multiple lines implying that if you buy this, you're buying a new friend: a doll you can take around in a locket. "a symbol of friendship you can wear too" and "inside each locket, a teeny best friend" tells the audience that you should this toy to get new friend, which who doesn't want? i think this commercial also uses avante garde. they use words like "new" and "explore" and "so many to collect" to encourage kids to buy this because it's different and hasn't been done before. the name "lil secret" also implies that only kids with this toy would understand that the locket necklace is actually a "tiny world inside". i think these advertising tactics are obviously working because of its long-lasting success throughout the years with similar templates for similar toys.

this ad is called "nerf fest is here!" and is obviously an ad for the popular "boy toy" nerf guns. this is the same exact narrator for almost every aggressive "boy toy" commercial who is yelling the script really fast. here is the need to agress. all the different names of the guns or "blasters" are just over the top to make it sound dangerous like "twinshock", "deadbolt", "raptorstrike" and "motofury". i honestly don't know what any of that means but it just sounds like they put together two aggressive sounding words to make a name. and with each gun, they show teen guys knocking down things like walls and metal along with killing cartoon zombies. i did not expect this but this ad used the magic ingredient tactic when describing one gun's "innovative switchfire technology". they make it sound really cool but really it's just a knob where you can adjust your "firing mode". the ad's choice of sound affects is also the cherry on top. they have very intense rock instrumental with a lot of bass along with pounding and thud sound effects when adding the title of each gun. along with the shopkins ad, their strategies are clearly working to convince their audiences to buy their product. even though they used the same tactics 10 years ago, i guess they're just that effective.

vsco vomit

disclaimer: i'm not trying to make fun of the people of vsco. this is my opinion on the app and its users. let me know if i said anything offensive.

vsco: the "photo editing" app... yeah right. this app has been blowing up since late 2018 and has turn into a social media platform dominated by teenage girls. vsco is advertised as a photo editing app for "creators", which what i was using it for until i realized a lot of girls on instagram putting their vsco handle into their bios. then i found about a whole different world of media. here on vsco, everyone seems to be super happy and quirky and relatable.

i'm not saying having a positive mindset is bad, but "vsco girls" take it to another level. i always see things like "happiest girls are the prettiest" "no bad days" and "espresso makes me less depresso". as someone who has struggled with mild depressive episodes, it does not feel good when people associate beauty with emotions. also, really? no bad days? and i know for a fact coffee does not reduce depression. i know these type of phrases aren't meant to harm others, but i think they are a bit insensitive and unrealistic.

vsco couples are a whole other realm of vsco. my friend veronica and i have noticed the extreme cheesiness of these posts, and we personally find a lot of it stupid. so we made a pinterest board called vsco vom with all these posts. we find them amusing because of how unrealistic everything is.  couple posts often come in the form of snapchat text bars and text messages exchanged. now that i think about it, ALL vsco couple posts are in those two forms. also, a lot of them can't tell the difference between your and you're and that drives me insane. here are some of my favorite "um..." posts:

• "not even God can handle me" with a girl wearing sunglasses, a pink hoodie, and her juul in her mouth 
• "boys who say your name before talking to you is the BEST feeling ever" 
• "when i say ur cute ur supposed to say it back. Not just 'thanks'"
• "did you know a crush only lasts 4 months so if u like someone longer than that ur in love..."
• "she doesn't even notice but i stare at her so much"
• "your the second best girl ever...i love my momma" it's you're not your :/
• this one is a text conversation."im about to cry in mcdonalds" "b*tch embrace it. mcbreakdown" 
• "why flex ur AirPods when u can flex ur beautiful girlfriend" 

i can't really explain why this is so cringeworthy for me. i think it's because everything sounds so forced and fake to idolize a relationship or a "teenager" lifestyle. 

if you're reading this, please tell me ur opinion on vsco, i would appreciate other viewpoints of it :)

big words don't make you sound smart??? *intense*

to be honest, i think i lost a couple of brain cells reading george orwell's article politics and the enlightenment language... but i think i got an idea of what his message was. i agree with his idea that modern writing includes a lot of unnecessary metaphors, big words, and long sentences, but i probably agree to this because i am a writer who lacks fancy vocabulary and things of that sort. you can probably tell, but i'm way more comfortable with casual writing rather than "formal" writing. up until this year, i always thought that more words (and fancier ones too) are better. i always thought that longer sentences were better. this school year was the year teachers started telling us to stop "trying to sound smart" by creating long sentences and using big words, and that kinda blew my mind.

i also agree with orwell's idea that writers lose their thought when they try to use certain phraseology. i always struggle with turning my ideas into words, especially with my limited vocabulary. so the questions that orwell says to use for every sentence is helpful, "what am i trying to say? what words will express it? what image or idiom will make it clearer? is this image fresh enough to have an effect?".

in conclusion, i agree with george because he says bigger vocabulary doesn't make writing better.

ads be like...

i agree with the pbs documentary persuaders idea that we are always surrounded by ads and there's really no avoiding them. i like the analogy made in the documentary saying that ads are pesticides and consumers (us) are roaches, and we have become immune to many pesticides, leading to companies to come up with new "pesticides" or strategies.

as an avid viewer of shark tank, i feel like i already had a bit of knowledge on the idea of having a focus group for a company. this correlates to the idea of satisfying consumers. of course a perfume company would want to put their ads in beauty magazines and not sports illustrated. this seems like one of the most obvious ways to attract profit. we cannot please everyone but we definitely can please a certain group of people. 

one idea that persuaders included that i never really thought about was the idea of fantasy, lifestyle, and identity. it made me realize how many commercials i see is trying to sell a certain lifestyle rather than the product. iv'e been seeing a lot of coke ads that are just these quick random shots of people running marathons, hanging out with friends,  jumping into pools, and of course the bubbly brown soda with really upbeat trap music. and i am just like what just happened? ads like these are promoting a lifestyle that apparently comes with the product they're selling, which obviously isn't true. like am i really going to play tennis like serena williams because i have the same nikes as her? i wish lol. we now know that companies are using psychology to kinda manipulate consumers into correlating their product with a certain lifestyle or identity... but are we really thinking about psychology when we are watching tv? probably not, so i would say these companies' advertising strategies are working. 

this taco bell commercial is interesting bc it shows a guy in formal wear holding taco bell and walks straight into a pool that is actually filled with bubbles of hot sauce while people are eating at a dining table full of more taco bell. oh and the vibe-y music.

"no you're not in some alternate chalupa-verse. you're experiencing the $5 chalupas craving box..." 

same story, different words

 CNN's "She dedicated herself to covering Northern Ireland. Murdered investigative journalist 'tirelessly pursued the truth'" and Fox's "Northern Irish police arrest 2 over killing of journalist" both report the story of the murder of journalist Lyra McKee. Although both sources are supposedly telling the same story, CNN and Fox took rather different approaches on the story. CNN spent most of the article discussing McKee's successful journalism career. Towards the end is really when they started talking about her death. Overall, this article seemed like a tribute and biography for Lyra McKee rather than a reporting of what happened. Meanwhile, Fox focused on the actual story: her murder. It is almost obvious what is being told by reading the two titles. CNN used words like "dedicated" and "pursued the truth" to describe the victim. In fact, only one word out of the 14 word title indicates the main idea of the story: "Murdered". Fox does the opposite and focused on crime, using only one word to describe McKee: "journalist". CNN's focus is the victim while Fox's focus is the criminals. Here are the first sentences of each article: "Lyra McKee, the young investigative journalist shot dead during violence in Northern Ireland on Thursday, had been widely viewed as a rising star within the industry (CNN) and "Police in Northern Ireland on Saturday arrested two teenagers in connection with the fatal shooting of a journalist during rioting in the city of Londonderry" (Fox). In CNN's article, McKee is the subject and is given a positive description. The sentence structure is like McKee's success while sprinkling in her murder. Fox, like I said earlier, focused on the actual crime details. The subject of their first sentence are the police who arrested the teenagers, not the victim. Once again they refer to McKee not by her name but "journalist". Overall, it seems that CNN took a tribute approach while Fox took a crime report approach. 

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/uk/lyra-mckee-northern-ireland-gbr-intl/index.html

Fox:  https://www.foxnews.com/world/northern-irish-police-arrest-2-over-killing-of-journalist

different perspectives