Dream On

Throughout the book The Road, Cormac McCarthy repeatedly brings up the idea of dreams.  Dreams not only provide with details of the man and boy's past, but they also give the reader insight into how the characters currently think.

For example. through dreams, we get to see the man's pessimistic view of the world.  He says, "The right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and death" (18).  He believes that since he is suffering, his dreams should be of suffering because then he won't wake up disappointed and realize how terrible his live was.

However, the man does have some pleasant dreams, particularly about his wife, the boy's mother.  These dreams are a significant contrast to the rest of the book because they make references to nature and beauty (such as "leafy canopy", "flowering wood where birds flew", and "aching blue" sky on page 18) , two things that are all but gone in the world.  These dreams, although pleasant, the man prefers not to have because they distract him from the brutal reality, which he does not want because it would only make him want to die more.

Dreams typically offer a chance to escape the reality and enter a new fictional world, but for the boy, he has never seen goodness, so he can only dream of bad things.  We hear this for the first time on page 269. when the boy says, "I don't have good dreams anyway.  They're always about something bad happening" (269).  The boy's dreams (we don't actually hear any of them specifically) show us that the reality is so bad that he can't even conceive of something good happening.  This, in a way, is a sign that he is not really human because the ability to imagine yourself in a different world is a purely human trait, and since the boy can't do that, part of his humanity is missing.

Worlds Apart

The Literal World
In Cormac McCarthy's post-apocalyptic book The Road, he creates a world that is been burnt and completely covered with ash.  He describes the world as, "Barren, silent, godless" (4).  McCarthy uses sentence fragments like this one often to describe the world.  This to me signifies that the world is broken up, much like this sentence and many others are broken up, and all that is left is emptiness and silence.

McCarthy also tries to create an unfamiliar world by using words in ways that we're not used to hearing them.  For example, he says, "He rose and stood tottering in the cold autistic dark" (15).  Using autistic to describe the darkness is kind of a daring choice by McCarthy, but he is using it to emphasize that they are in an unpredictable world of their own.

Another way McCarthy makes the world unfamiliar to the readers is through many similes.  Most of these similes, though, make comparisons that one would not normally make.  On page 8, he says, "The shape of a city stood in the grayness like a charcoal drawing sketched across the waste."  The words "charcoal drawing" make us think of a gray, blurry picture smudged across paper.  Cities in our world are typically seen as the opposite--lively and beautiful, but now in McCarthy's world, even the most beautiful things have become gray, dull, and lifeless.

The Father's World
Because he's responsible for his child, the father lives very paranoid, and the world is very dangerous to him.  His child is his "warrant" (or reason, 5) for living, and his "world entire" (6).  Therefore, he does everything he can to keep them out of danger, meaning he often must ignore and run away from other people against his son's wishes.

The father's whole world was ripped away from him, and I get the feeling that he wants go too, as he always dreams about his past life and death.  However, he is now devoted to create a world for his son to live in, so he lives to teach his son how to survive and pass on his stories of the old world.

The Son's World
Having never really been exposed to the real world before the apocalypse, the son's world is mainly a construction of the man's censorship.  All he knows of the world is from what his father tells him, and his father explains things to him very trivially.  Throughout the book, the father tries to convince his son that they are the "good guys" who are "carrying the fire" and that everyone else is bad and untrustworthy.  However, the son doesn't completely buy in to what his father tells him.  He sees all people as good guys at first and wants to help them, unlike his father who does everything to avoid other people.

The boy is so "strangely untroubled" by horrific sights because he has been exposed to them so much that they have become normal (181).  Everything good has been stripped away from him, and goodness to him only exists in stories because "real life is pretty bad" (268).  That's why he so desperately wants to help other people; he wants to experience the goodness he hears about in his father's stories, but so far, everything that has happened to him has been bad, and he is accustomed to that.

The Road Section III

Questions

1.  Why is all the dialogue composed of one line sentences?
2.  Why does the man still hold on to his wallet?

Parallel

"He said the right dreams for a man in peril were dreams of peril and all else was the call of languor and of death." (18)

"They say that women dream of danger to those in their care and men of danger to themselves." (57)

Dreams are a crucial part of the story because they become the only thing where the man can escape the reality.  However, he and his wife both say the he should be dreaming of danger.

Contrast

"The boy took his truck from the pack and shaped roads in the ash with a stick...He made truck noises." (60)

"Then he heard on the road behind him what sounded like a diesel truck." (61)

The boy plays with his toy truck, which is a symbol a innocence and is used for fun, but then a real truck comes and brings danger.

The Road Section II

Questions

1.  Why don't people band together and help each other out?
2.  Why did this disaster happen in the first place?

Parallel

"He dreamt of walking in a flowering wood where birds flew before them." (18)

"The small wad of burning paper drew down to a wisp of flame and then died out leaving a faint pattern for just a moment in the incandescence like the shape of a flower, a molten rose." (47)

The man dreams about and so desperately wants to see beauty and flowers than even when seeing the horrible sight of human bodies in the truck, he thinks about how the flame looks like a flower.

Contrast

"In his dream she was sick and he cared for her." (32)

The man says: "No.  We can't help him." (50)

The man is always willing to give help to his son (that's what he lives for) and his wife in his dreams, but he doesn't care at all for the poor man they pass by on the road.

The Road Section I

Questions

1.  How did the man and the boy survive?  Will we ever find out?
2.  Is there anyone else alive?
3.  Where are they?

Parallel

"He raised his face to the paling day...Are you there? he whispered...Have you a heart?  Damn you eternally have you a soul?  Oh god, he whispered.  Oh God."  (11-12).

The man says: "This is where we used to have Christmas when I was a boy" (26).

This is a book that seems to revolve around religion and whether the characters have faith in God.  The man doubts his existence in the first quote, but tell us of the happy times he had at Christmas (an obviously religious holiday) when he was a child.

Contrast

"The shape of a city stood in the grayness like a charcoal drawing sketched across the waste" (8).

"In his dreams his pale bride came to him out of a green and leafy canopy" (18).

Everything in the real world is gray and ash, whereas the world in the man's dreams in lively and full of color, which the man hates because it tortures him.

You only get one shot...

If I had to choose one "shot" (frame) that sums up Harvey Pekar's book, The Quitter, it would be this high angle long shot of Harvey in his bed on the right (not the box in the top left corner):

The Quitter is a book about Harvey Pekar (shown above) who was never really able to "make it" until late in life because he was too scared to face challenges, and this shot captures that idea.  Harvey is clutching his bed, suggesting that he is too scared to leave it and go out into the real world.  He is so scared that he has to pin himself down so that he can't get swept off of it.  His frightened face and the fact that he has no socks or shirt also give us the idea that he has absolutely no intention of getting out of bed.  Life has been too stressful for Harvey, and he is too scared to get up and face it.  Instead, he just shies away from challenges and hides in his bed.

The reason he is scared is that almost everything goes wrong for him in the book, and boy, have things gone wrong in this room.  The bed is not made, there are papers everywhere, the mirror (picture?) is cracked, and it's all just a big mess.  This mess in the room symbolizes the mess that Harvey's life is.  He fails at everything he tried and has no security in his life as he bounces from job to job.

However, despite his life being a mess, Harvey is very gifted and has the means to clean it up, and this shot tells us that as well.  Because his shirt is off, you can see that Harvey is very strong.  Also, there is a bookshelf on the left packed with books, implying that he is very smart.  These two qualities (strong and smart) make up a well rounded person that should be very successful.  Harvey has always had the potential to do something big; he was one of the most physically and intellectually gifted students when he was younger.   Unfortunately, that never amounted to anything for him because he was not resilient and couldn't overcome difficult times.  However, Harvey later becomes not only a well respected Jazz reviewer, but also an award-winning comic book writer, proving that he does have the ability to be successful, which this picture subtly tells us through the bookshelf and by reminding us of his strength.

The Quitter Section 5: Fate vs. Free Will

Written Parallel

Harvey says:  "But [writing for the Jazz Review] had such a good reputation" (91).
Harvey says:  "I had the respect I wanted for being a fighter" (35).


Throughout his life, Harvey has always cared so much about his reputation and what people think about him.  When he was younger, he needed to be respected for being a fighter, but as he matures, he turns into an intellectual, where he still strives to have a good reputation.

Visual Parallel

Shown above are two images (both long shots with two people) where Harvey meets a very successful and famous intellectual in a field that he loves.  The first picture shows Harvey meeting Ira Gitler, a famous Jazz reviewer, while the second one shoes him with Robert Crumb, a comic book illustrator who goes on to do big things.  One interesting observation I made is that these are really the only two characters (by that I mean people who appear in more than one frame) who wear glasses.  The glasses seem to represent knowledge, as only the most intellectual people wear them, and nobody in the sports world or in the Navy were ever shown wearing glasses.

Fate vs. Free Will

Each time Harvey quits, he writes about it as if it were his inevitable fate to do so, and I strongly disagree.  When he first quit football, he did so because he wasn't the star anymore and the coach didn't play him as much as he would've liked.  He acted as if some force (fate) was against him and that he had to quit.  Later, when quit the Navy, it wasn't because he was physically unable to do any of the tasks, it was because he didn't know how to do laundry and broke down mentally.  This happened once again when he was in college.  He overreacted to getting a C+ on one test and dropped out.  His attitude was that he couldn't learn anything and was destined to fail, and because of this, he did fail.

Being a second generation Jewish immigrant in a poor neighborhood of Cleveland, Harvey was not destined to succeed, and he knew that.  He took this the wrong way by thinking this meant he was destined to fail, which is not true.  Therefore, when times got hard, he decided to quit before even trying to fight through it because he believed he wasn't supposed to make it through.

However, he only failed because he chose to, not because this was his fate, and this becomes increasingly obvious as the novel goes on.  When he finally gets the courage to try to write for a big time magazine (after being pressured by Ira Gitler), he succeeds and becomes an admired writer almost immediately.  Also, his first comics were a huge hit.  These two facts show us that Harvey is actually really talented and could've succeeded much earlier.  However, he chose to shy away from all of his challenges earlier in life by quitting everything right when they got tough for him, although his future success tells us that he could've made it through those challenges if he had just tried.

The Quitter Section 4: Will the real Harvey please stand up?

Written Parallel

Harvey says, "I took the train back and I was feeling really helpless and discouraged on the ride.  What could I do with myself?" with mountains in the background (48).
Dean says, "Why are you quitting?  You're making a mountain out of a molehill" (70).

Although the word "mountain" doesn't come up twice, it is clear Pekar wants us to think about it because he put it in the image when Harvey is feeling helpless, and then he brings it up in text when once again Harvey is quitting because he doesn't think he can succeed.

Visual Parallel

Throughout the book, I have been noticing a connection between the real life Harvey Pekar, and his dad in the story.  At first, I often got them confused because they look very alike.  They each alway have a long sleeve button down shirt, the same hairstyle, and the same facial expressions.  I wonder if Pekar meant this on purpose to say that in a way he has become his father, who he was once so embarrassed of and has never looked up to,

Analysis

As mentioned above, Harvey often interrupts the story to put his modern-day self in the frame.  Not only do these remind us that this is an autobiographical story of a man looking back on his life, but they also show us what Harvey turns out to be, so they kind of foreshadow the story.  Although he is able to point out where he went wrong, I don't really think the older Harvey is necessarily wiser because he often shows uncertainty and at one demonstrates the notion that he still worries about how he is going to get through the next few years.  This shows us that Harvey has not really changed all that much.  He has always been able to realize when he's wrong or things aren't going well, but he never knows what to do or how to react.  At this point, I feel like the older Harvey is a depressed man, who is looking back on his past and all that he regrets with amazing honesty.

The Quitter Section 3: "Words, Words, Words..."

Written Parallel/Contrast

Harvey says, "I really felt peaceful and relaxed on those Friday nights and looked forward to them so much" (40).
Harvey says, "By Friday, I was so shook up, I couldn't get out of bed...I was too nervous.

In high school, Harvey feels no pressure on his Friday nights and is able to enjoy this time and his life without worrying too much.  However, when he enters the work force a few years later, he is such a wreck that even on Fridays he can't relax.

Visual Parallel/Contrast

Shown are the two shots where Harvey is not wearing a shirt.  Both times he is in bed.  The first time, however, he is lying face up clutching the sides and the bed is unmade.  Also, the picture (or maybe it's a mirror) above his head his cracked, and there are papers all over.  This picture shows how disorderly his life is.  However, the next shot, when his life is a little more put together (he is in college and doing well), shows Harvey lying casually on his bed.  This time, though, he is lying the opposite way and the bed is made beneath him.  Also, you can clearly see the picture above his bed, and the room is very orderly with the bookcase and no papers (except the envelop he was opening).  So the same setting, shows two very different depictions of Harvey.

"Words, Words, Words..."

For the most part, Pekar uses boxes, which suggests this is his present voice narrating the past.  One moment, however, he tells through dialogue (which is represented by circular text boxes.  This is when he goes to the "shrink" and gets kicked out of the Navy.  He could've easily chosen to use a box hear and just say "They told me I wasn't fit for the Navy," but instead he chose to put this dialogue in there.  In this dialogue Harvey expresses his worries about the future and he thinks he will never succeed, so by putting in dialogue here, Pekar shows us his thoughts at the time, rather than just summing it up in his present voice.

Film Noir Comparison

L.A. Confidential Shot

Double Indemnity

Above are two shots from two different film noir movies.  The first is from L.A. Confidential, a neo-noir film from 1997, and the second is from Double Indemnity, a film noir from 1944.  A common element in film noir movies is the idea of the purity and innocence of a small town versus the evilness of a big city.  Both of these movies toy with this idea.

In the first shot from L.A. Confidential, we see for the first time a picture of Lynn Bracken's room.  Prior to this, the film kind of sets her up as a "femme fatale," an evil seductive woman, but here, we see a much different picture.  This shot of her bedroom shows us her soft side, with the embroidered pillows, the nice curtains, and the fancy table.  This is not the bedroom that you would expect a hooker to have.  The most interesting detail of this picture is the Arizona pillow.  On this, you can see that the presumably small town of Bisbee, Arizona is labeled, implying that this is her hometown.  This gives the viewer the idea that deep down, she is just an innocent small town girl, as opposed to Phyllis from Double Indemnity, who is from Los Angeles.

The shot below, which is a long shot from Double Indemnity, also features a small town person.  The man in the middle is from Medford, Oregon.  How do we know that?  Well, he says it in almost every sentence, so clearly the film makers want us to know that detail.  In this shot, he is sitting down and looking up at Mr. Keyes, showing respect.  He is dressed formally and is holding a cigar in one hand and paperwork in the other.  All these details show is that this guy is trustworthy and well intentioned.  Walter Neff, on the other hand, who lives in and is likely from Los Angeles, is standing behind, looking nervous and covering his face.  He clearly feels guilty and his hiding something.

These two shots support the notion that living in a big city corrupts people, whereas there is something more pure about being from a small town.

The Quitter Section 2: Images

Written Parallel

Harvey says: "But I buckled down to work, boy.  I didn't want to embarrass [my father]" (15).
Harvey says: "When my father came to take me to the new place,...I was suddenly embarrassed by him" (7).

As a child, Harvey was embarrassed of his foreign father, but as he matures, he doesn't want to let him down, although he still doesn't agree with his ways.

Visual Contrast

Throughout the novel, I have been noticing a sharp distinction to how black people and white people are depicted in the illustration, and I've found this difference to be borderline racist.  On page 5 at the bottom, there is an angry mob of black people who look like savages.  Their faces are distorted and they look sort of barbaric.  Whereas, on page 28, when Harvey's classmates are complimenting him on his fighting skills, all the "extras" that are white look very respectable and like nice humans.

Images

Here we have a long shot of Harvey in the boys locker room after he beat up a kid.  Much like many of the shots we've looked at, the most interesting part of the shot does not happen in the middle frame.  Instead, the guy lying on the ground is roughly at the intersection on the bottom right frame (if you can picture a tic-tac-toe grid on the image) and the middle frame is relatively unoccupied.  There are people in the middle, but they are in the back and clearly less important.  This shot I'd argue is slightly a low angle shot.  We can see Harvey's whole body (on the right) but we are below his face so we are looking up at him.  This makes him appear bigger and he is towering over the guy on the floor who he just beat up.

The Quitter Section 1: Frames

On the third page, Harvey's mother says, "African Americans and Jews should stick together, since we're both persecuted minorities."

Later in the section, Harvey wonders, "Why would she want me to give up just because I was in the minority?"

These quotes both show how important it is to Harvey's mother to not me in the minority.  She thinks African-Americans and Jews should side with each other because that will give them more numbers, and she tells Harvey he should join the other side because he is outnumbered.


After watching film noire, a visual parallel that I noticed right away while reading this book was the use of shadows.

In both of the fight scenes shown above, Harvey's opponents are shown only as shadows.  This gives the reader the idea that these people are insignificant, nameless people that are dark and mean.  They shadow over Harvey in the upper shot, as if them have power over him, but Harvey is grasping and finally beating the shadow in the shot below.

Also, this book features many different shapes and sizes of frames.  Visually, the frames that stick out first are the large frames with little text interrupting them.  One of the biggest frames in the section is shown above, where the shadows of his opponents stand over Harvey.  This is a crucial shot because it shows that Harvey is powerless against the many people, which relates to the written parallel I found that has to do with strength of numbers and minorities.  The other biggest frame is Harvey shown covering his ears, trying to block out his Mom's favorite candidate and a communist flag, showing that he doesn't want to hear to opinions of his mother because they are unpopular in American culture.

One interesting thing I noticed the author did with frames was on page 11, the last page we read.  This page is divided up into 6 squares and is perfectly symmetrical.  Harvey is placed on the right third of the frames on the left, and the left third of the frames on the right, so when you look at them together, It looks like 3 people connected by the frames.  This shows two sides of Harvey.  On the left side, he is in the dark, angry and his face is bruised, whereas on the right, his face is clean and well lit, and he looks confused.  This page shows the effect of how frames can take on a different meaning when they are placed next to each other.

Also, when a page has many small frames, things seem to be going by quicker and it is easier to glance over them, as they are not the most important part.  On the other hand, when the frames are big, although there is less text, things seem to move slower.

If I were to make chapters in the book, I'd end the first chapter after Harvey wins a fight and gets accepted into a new group of people because it has a good narrative arc (Harvey is faced with a conflict and he overcomes that conflict).  I'd title this section "Minority Race" because it captures the idea that minorities are racing to get out of their situation and join the majority.  The African-Americans have done this, as they have found a neighborhood where they could be the majority, and Harvey does this too in the end when he finally fits in.

The next section (that I've made) starts with Harvey asking his mother for advice, but then realizing that she is wrong, and he'd have to do things his own way.  All people have this realization that their mother is not always right as they grow up, so I'd title this section "Independence," as he is becoming independent from his mother.

Frames

In the picture above, the bunk beds act as a frame to the teddy bear, who lies at the intersection of the top right frame.  To the left, there is another character in the background, who seems less important to the scene since he is farther away.

 This is a picture taken of my grandparents.  While they are in the foreground and are clearly the focus of the picture, I think the background (buildings in Chicago) is just as important.  This picture would look way different and send a different message if the background were mountains, or a lake, or a football game.

Here is another picture of my teddy bear, who is placed in the lower right frame of the shot.  In the center and everywhere else in the photo is far less interesting, but it provides context that the bear is in its comfortable home.

The teddy bear here is framed between ordinary kitchen items.  The bowl of fruit, oven mitt, counter, pot, and television (who doesn't have one of those in their kitchen nowadays?) surround the bear to place him in his own frame.

I love this shot because it shows the teddy bear has power over my dog.  This is because this low angle show makes the bear look big.  We know it is low angle because in the top third of the picture we can see the cabinets above.  The middle frame is relatively unoccupied (just the bear's big forehead), but the real action takes place at in the bottom third where both the dog's and the bear''s face are.

 This picture to me is extremely interesting.  The whole right third is lit up by lightning.  The middle third is dominated by the Sears Tower (or I guess the Willis Tower), which is sort of framed by the other buildings, and in the top left, there is yet another light (the sun).  Also, in the bottom left, there is the neon light of a restaurant.  Besides that though, the rest of the picture is very gloomy and dark.

This picture to me is interesting because a few of the lines of the 9 frames are drawn by items in the picture like the foul pole and the sign.  The sign on top is interesting to me because although it is in the foreground, it is not the most interesting thing in the picture.  It just serves as a bearing to let the viewer know that this is the perspective of a fan in the stands.

 This picture isn't from this week, but I decided to upload it because it is maybe the coolest picture I have every taken with an iPhone camera.  The person is in the top right frame.  In the foreground, there is water splashing up from the motor, informing the viewer we are on a boat, and in the back in the top third, there are trees and a house, telling us we are on a small lake.

What this one shot of Minority Report tells us...

The shot above is a medium shot from the movie Minority Report.  It is pretty much straight on (neither high nor low angle).

On the left is Lamar Burgess, who is in the light, suggesting he knows something.  Danny Witwer is on the right, but he is in the dark because he does not know the information Burgess knows.  The left side of his face (from the camera's perspective), is however slightly lit up, suggesting maybe he is on the verge of uncovering something.  This would explain why there is a concerned look on Burgess' face; he is worried that Witwer is close to knowing what he knows because his face is starting to light up.

Another interesting observation is that the background behind Burgess (the left side) is all curved and slanted.  Throughout the movie, Spielberg uses circles or round objects to suggest secret or illegal activity, such as murder.  For example, the "murder predicting machine" shown in the beginning of the film turns a cubic wooden block into a sphere when a murder is committed.  Conversely, on Witwer's side of the room (the right side), everything is perfectly straight and rectangular in the background, or in other words, there are only 90 degree angles, suggesting that he goes by the rules and has nothing to hide.

A last key difference is how each character is dressed.  Burgess is wearing his suit jacket, which tends suggest power in film (the higher position you hold, the more formally you will typically dress.  It also suggests that maybe he is covering himself up or hiding behind his jacket so nobody can see the real him.  Witwer, on the other hand, has clearly taken off his outer suit jacket and not holding anything back.

So, just by looking in depth at the shot and ignoring all other parts of the movie, one can reasonably conclude that Burgess knows something that Witwer doesn't, and he is trying to cover it up because it may be something illegal.  This shot is contrast to the previous scenes in the movie, where Burgess is made out to be good and Witwer is made out to be the bad guy.  Therefore, I belief it exists to shift the viewers viewpoint and show us the bad side of Burgess because, as it turns out, he did commit a murder that Witwer, now not so much a bad guy, is on the verge of discovering.  One can also make extremely different conclusions, but having seen the movie, that's how I'm seeing it.

Movies I Watched This Summer

At Home:
21 Jumpstreet
Cars (a couple of times)
Dude, Where's My Car?
Minority Report

In Theatres:
Amazing Spiderman
Ted


Of these movies that I've listed above, the one that surprised me most was Ted, a comedy that Seth McFarland of Family Guy wrote, directed, and starred in (or his voice did).  I didn't know what to expect when I went to see this movie, but the fact that it starred a living teddy bear made me a little skeptical.  I was shocked at how vulgar this film was for a film that features a teddy bear (can you imagine how many little kids begged their parents to talk them to the teddy bear movie?), but it was still surprisingly funny for an adult crowd and had a common real life conflict (keeping friends close as you grow up).  So despite the fact that it had a living teddy bear, it was a very funny movie that actually is somewhat realistic (don't we all have a "Ted" that we struggle to move on from as we grow up?).

On another note, the effects in this movie would have been impossible to imagine 10 years ago.  It is amazing how they could bring a teddy bear to life in a non animated film without it looking fake.

Favorite Post

Looking back through all my blogs this quarter, I think my favorite post was the first one I did this quarter, called "The Impact of Trayvon Martin."  I did this blog over spring break when I was really just trying to relax and enjoy my time, but I was really intrigued by this Trayvon Martin story and took my time putting out a blog about it.

I think this blog is a great one because it is very well organized: I introduced the topic in an interesting way, provided historical facts and other's reactions to them, and then looked critically at what happened and how people reacted.

One thing in this blog I think I could've analyzed more was the picture.  I simply just put it there since that picture was used in a lot of articles I read and used it to just show people what George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin looked like.  Looking at this picture again, it is obvious I could've analyzed more, as this picture clearly tries to make people feel bad for Trayvon.  They used a picture of Trayvon when he was a few years younger and innocently smiling as if this was a school yearbook photo.  For Zimmerman however, there is a mug shot with him glaring at the camera, looking like a very unfriendly man.  I think just by looking at this picture people subconsciously take Trayvon's side, and it could be a big reason he had so many supporters in this case because this picture was so commonly chosen to be in news articles.

I still think though that this blog was very powerful because I start with a specific example of a case that happened and then broaden my lens to look at America as a whole.  So, while I believe so many of my blogs are worthy of being read, I would highly recommend you read "The Impact of Trayvon Martin."

Just the Right Shade?

"You knew at some point, [Barack Obama] was supposed to win.  He had all the right ingredients that came together at the right time: he's tall, good looking, articulate, highly intelligent, smooth under pressure, charismatic, and--most importantly--he was the right shade."

Is Obama's relatively light skin color a
possible reason he won?

This is a quote from stand-up comedian Aries Spears that I came across and was struck by (here is the video, his Obama comments start 13 minutes in).  He claims that Obama's perfect skin color allowed him to win, and when I though about it, I agreed with this notion because he was light enough to "make white people feel comfortable" but still "Black" so that Americans can feel like we have progressed enough to elect an African-American president.

If Obama was "Bernie Mac black," I truly don't think he could've been elected, but since he is 1/4 white and has lighter skin, the idea of him as president was a little less radical to people.  To use Aries Spears' analogy, he's like "coffee with cream, it goes down easy" as opposed to "coffee black," which is "too strong."

On the other hand, I believe there is another group of Americans that wants to buy into this idea (myth?) that we are no longer a racist country.  Therefore, the fact that he was African-American at all helped him.

Obama's skin color was "perfect" because it appealed to both these groups of people: he got every Black person's vote for simply being their skin color and didn't scare too many white people away since he is very light skinned for an African-American.

Is Aries Spears right?  Was Obama just the right shade for being president?  Would results have been different if he was much darker or lighter?

Need for Violence

A couple days ago, protestors came to Chicago because there was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conference taking place with a lot of the world's leaders.  What I found particularly interesting was how the media covered this event.  I flipped through multiple news channels during this time that were all covering the protestors, but not one mentioned what was taking place at the conference or what the protesters were protesting.  The only thing that was ever covered was the violence, or lack of violence for that matter, that occurred.  For example, take a look at this snapshot of the CNN coverage below:

Almost every other news station, like CNN, mentioned and tried to cover some sort of "clash" that took place between the police and the protesters, and then after is was all done and they realized there wasn't any violence to report, they'd all say, "Well the Chicago police did a very good job," seeming slightly disappointed that they couldn't make a big story out of it as they clearly planned to do.

This type of news coverage didn't just occur during this event, it always happens.  All the time, the news reports violence only without ever really telling the reasons behind it like they did here.  What was the NATO Conference for?  What were these people protesting?  To be honest, I still don't really fully understand despite looking and asking people, and nobody can tell me for sure what this is all about.  All I've heard is that the police did a great job preventing violence because that's all the news will ever say.

Why is there this need for violence?  Should news stations report the general information even if it's less exciting?

America's Arc

One of the proposed titles for the film Citizen Kane, a film many critics claim to be the best film ever, was The American.  Without question, the main character Charles Foster Kane is "the American" they were referring to because his life represents not the common American life, or even the ideal American life, but the country itself.

The United States of America began when the castaways from Europe rose up to defeat the great British army to gain their independence.  They began as a country of people who didn't know much about being in power, but knew that they wanted to have certain ideals that they illustrated in the Declaration of Independence.

Charles Foster Kane was very similar.  He didn't fight for his fortune, but he did come from nothing but was then somehow selected to inherit a great fortune.  At a young age, he took over a newspaper company, and on his first day, he created his "Declaration of Principles", which were promises that he would not be corrupt and deliver unbiased news, which the public deserved.  However, when he signs this declaration, he is in a shadow, showing that he is "in the dark" about what is to come.

Much like Charles Foster Kane, America rose and became among the most powerful forces in the world because that's what they desired and felt they deserved.  However, Kane begins to lose everybody's support when he refuses to make amends for others.  For example, when his opponent in the race for governor threatens to expose his affair to the public, he stays in the race despite not having much of a chance rather than backing out to protect his image and his family.  He does this because he is convinced that he is the best and nobody can do anything to him.

I find this to be the mindset of America as a country as well.  America has plenty of power in the world, so they believe their way is the only way and refuse to make amends for others because of their ego, much like Kane.  One example of this in American history is the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII because they felt risking 30,000 American lives in an invasion (which nobody denies would have been successful) was not worth it when they could just kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people.  America did this because they truly believed they were better and that their lives meant more.

America's narrative arc thus has been identical to Kane's through his early years: start from nothing, but then gain power but promise to retain ideals, which are later tossed aside as they are corrupted by having too much power and by things they couldn't see coming.  America has not yet encountered the complete downfall Kane did at the end of his life with no real relationships, but perhaps this movie was predicting it?

Are we still racist in voter registration?

Many people have heard of specific laws and literacy tests that prevented southern African-Americans from voting before the Civil Rights Movement, but most people are unaware of what Andrew Hacker calls the subtle laws that prevent minorities from voting today.

Hacker argues that by requiring formal photo identification such as a driver's license or passport to vote (as states have recently began to do), they are preventing African-Americans and other minorities, who are much less likely to have one of these government-issued documents, from voting.

Hacker specifically studies the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where over 53% of the black population is unlicensed, compared to only 15% of whites who don't have a license.  These numbers are similar across the country, he claims.  It is technically possible for unlicensed people to still get another permitted form of identification, but oftentimes African-Americans and other minorities, who are typically much more disadvantaged, do not have the resources to retrieve one of these pieces of identification.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is another way African-Americans are being prevented the right to vote.  This act requires states to keep track of their voters, and to do that they would send out letters to all their voters, and cross off the people they could not find.  The people that were crossed out lived in "mostly urban and minority areas" because these people tend to move more often or not have a permanent address, and thus preventing people in these areas from voting.

Of course, all these laws are justified by the fact that it prevents fraud, which it does, but it also prevents a lot of people, especially minorities, from voting.

Why does the government make these laws?  Are they really that interested in preventing fraud which could help them or are they trying to eliminate a group of voters like Hacker suggests?  Are these laws fair?  Are there any alternative solutions?

The Influence of Gangsta Rap

Since the 1960's, gang involvement throughout the nation has been a major problem in nearly every city, and John Hagedorn, gang expert, believes this could be attributed to the rising popularity of what he calls "gangsta rap" music, which is "offensive mixes of misogyny, materialism, and glorified violence."  He argues that because gangsta rap promotes violence, it encourages kids to join gangs, so when it became popular, it influenced a lot of kids into committing crimes and joining gangs.  But could this type of music and culture really have this much of a negative influence?

Looking at the history of gangs and comparing that to the times when gangsta rap was most mainstream, there is definitely a correlation between the two, but this correlation contradicts Hagedorn's viewpoint that the rise gangsta rap caused the rise of gang activity.  Instead, it suggests the exact opposite: that gangsta rap music must have stemmed from, not caused, high gang activity.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gangsta rap started in about 1985, during the height of gang violence, and became most prominent in the mid 1990's, after gang activity began to decline due to law enforcement changes in the early 1990's (according to Sudhir Venkatesh in Gang Leader for a Day).  Therefore, since gangsta rap's popularity peaked slightly after gang crime did, it must be a result of gang activity and not a cause.

An explanation for this is that rappers, who come primarily from inner-city poor neighborhoods, are exposed to a high level of violence, and then rap about it.  The time it takes for them to write and produce the songs and then have them circulate may take a few years, which explains why gangsta rap was still rising in popularity even as gang activity began to decline in the early 1990's.

Another problem I have with Hagedorn's (among others) viewpoint that gangsta rap music is a major cause of violence is that this type of music actually appeals just as much to suburban, upper class teens (who are drawn in by the rebellious nature of the music) than it does to inner-city, lower class teens who are actually exposed to this lifestyle.  So, given this information, according to Hagedorn's viewpoint, we would see a rise in crime and gang activity in the suburbs as well, which is just straight up not the case.

I do understand that this gangsta rap music doesn't promote the right ideals and it could have an effect on some people's behavior, but I doubt that it can be an accurate reason for gang activity.  Kids in these inner-city neighborhoods are exposed to so many other things, such as high unemployment rates, poor education, high crime rates, etc., that even without gangsta rap, gangs would still exist as prevalent as they are today.

Black Noise

"Sometimes you have to beat a nigger to teach him a lesson.  Don't worry, you'll get used to it after a while," says Black Kings gang leader J.T. in Sudhir Venkatesh's book Gang Leader for a Day.  "That's just the way it is around here" (70).

In the projects, unfortunately, that is that way it is.  Everywhere you look, you'll see drugs, violence, prostitution, and gangs. 

On the other hand, in White Noise, Don DeLillo mocks the viewpoint of an inhabitant of the exact opposite type of neighborhood: "I'm a college professor…We live in a neat and pleasant town near a college with a quaint name.  [Bad] things don't happen in places like Blacksmith" (112).  

Jack, the character who say this quote, feels completely safe and above danger because of the community he lives in.  Meanwhile, the people in J.T.'s community are accustomed to feeling threatened by the possibility of danger anywhere they go.

Sometimes, these opposite communities can be just blocks apart, so what makes them so different?  Why is it that some communities have no threat of gang violence while in others gangs dominate the town?

Some people believe the answer to this question is simply because our cultural stereotypes say it should be this way.  In other words, we have developed stereotypes that label poor minorities as criminals, and therefore, poor minorities begin to believe that they should be criminals.  This is called the "culture of violence" theory, meaning that people in poor communities are taught not to value being part of society and having a job and instead join gangs because they see no problem with it.

Don DeLillo in White Noise also mocks this idea when Jack wonders that his children might be developing symptoms just because the radio said they should: "Is it possible to have a false perception of an illusion…I wondered whether her palms had been truly sweaty or whether she'd simple imagined a sense of wetness.  And was she so open to suggestion that she would develop every symptom as it was announced?" (122).  In this case and the "culture of violence" theory, things are happening simply because people believe they should.

While I think this theory makes some sense, I don't buy it because I don't think that it's in poor people's natural culture to not value a real job and join a gang.  I think instead it's because the jobs our society leaves open to them are so undesirable that it is much more attractive to join a gang where you can have money and power.  

The gang leader J.T., who I mentioned earlier, echoes my beliefs: "So you want me to take pride in the job, and you're only paying me minimum wage?" he asks in Gang Leader for a Day.  "It don't sound like you think much about the job yourself" (28).  Before he was a gang leader, J.T. attended college and then took a job selling office supplies at a midsize corporation.  I bet you didn't expect to hear that--I certainly didn't when I read it.  That doesn't sound much like a guy who's been destined his whole life to be criminal because of where he's from; he tried to have a "normal" job.  However, he then became frustrated that he wasn't making much money and that lesser skilled whites got promoted over him, so he quit to return to gang life where he could hold a high position and get paid more.

It's not right to say J.T. was  "meant" to be a criminal because of his race or class.  He became involved with gangs because the community he was raised him presented him with no better opportunities since it is marginalized from the rest of society.  This is the true reason for why gangs come to dominate some communities and not others.  They are disconnected from other communities, who just see and hear their problems as white noise.  Or maybe I should say, black noise.

Is Spike Lee 'Doing the RIght Thing'?

Last week, famous film director Spike Lee retweeted what turned out to be the wrong address of George Zimmerman to his over 250,000 followers.  Zimmerman, as I blogged about last week, is the neighborhood watchman who is in hiding after he infamously shot and killed teenager Trayvon Martin but was not charged with murder because he claimed he was acting in self defense.

The address Lee tweeted turned out to be that of an elderly, retired couple who had a son with a similar name.  This couple, scared for their lives, has been forced to flee their homes in fear of people trying to kill them.

Lee has since apologized for having the wrong address, but I still don't think this is a very forgivable action.  Not because he messed up the address, but because it is never a good idea to tweet anybody's personal address.  Especially a person that is so hated.

Lee had to know that people were going to show up at the house and try to make Zimmerman's life hell, so if this address was correct and Zimmerman got hurt in any way, I believe Spike Lee should be the person to blame, but do you think he even would have apologized?

We have courts and trials for a reason, Spike, let them do their work.  We don't need you to send your mob to try to get justice.

Actions like Lee's  greatly elevate the rate of violent crimes.  By tweeting his address, Lee, who has a lot of influence over African-Americans especially given his success., is basically telling his followers that it's alright to go and hurt, maybe even kill, George Zimmerman because he was wrong first.

This "Well, he did it first, so I need to get him back," viewpoint is a very often a huge reason why people commit violent acts, and therefore people who are exposed to violence are far more often to commit violent acts because they don't perceive it as being very bad.  In fact, in a study done in a journal I came across when researching shows that the crime that African-Americans living in urban, disadvantaged neighborhoods perceive to be the most understandable (when compared to prostitution, theft, and white collar crimes) is killing a white cop who is intentionally offensive and racist.  Whether he is or not, Zimmerman is being portrayed as a racist white cop who killed Trayvon Martin out of hate, so there is obviously a large group out their who want him dead, who, when given the message from Spike Lee that it's acceptable to hurt Zimmerman believe that killing him would not only be justifiable, but it is the right thing to do.

Is it possible to stop and calm a group of angry people so that they don't get violent revenge?

The Impact of Trayvon Martin

You would never think a walk to the store to buy iced tea and Skittles could get you killed right?  Well, that's what happened to Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African-American teenager wearing a hoodie who was shot and killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman on February 26th in Sanford, Florida on his way home from the store because Zimmerman felt that Trayvon was acting suspicious.  Zimmerman, however, was not charged, as he claimed he was acting in self defense.

17 year old Trayvon Martin (left) and 28 year old George Zimmerman (right).

This story has received plenty of coverage recently and has sparked a major debate.  Many people feel Zimmerman should be charged with murder and label him a racist, while others feel Trayvon sparked this event.  Thousands of people, including famous athletes Patrick Ewing and Ray Lewis, gathered at a rally in Florida yesterday, exactly one month later, to protest the decision and support Trayvon's family.  Why has this caused so much controversy?  Well, let's look at what happened:

Zimmerman was out running a personal errand when he spotted Trayvon, who was on his way back from buying iced tea and Skitles, and thinking this was suspicious, Zimmerman called 911 and began to follow him.  The police dispatcher told him, "You don't need to [follow him]."  Zimmerman continued anyway, and moments later reported he had lost sight of Trayvon.  Then, according to Zimmerman's attorney, Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and began to attack him, reaching for his gun.  After a minute or so of struggle, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon.  "At that point, either George or Trayvon was going to die," claims Zimmerman's friend Joe Oliver.

In this story, it is clear that both people are in the wrong.  If Zimmerman never followed Trayvon, or if Trayvon never attacked Zimmerman, then, well, let's just say I wouldn't be writing this blog.  However, this unfortunate event did happen, and it's hard for me to say who is more at fault.

I can say, however, that the reaction to this event on both sides has been ridiculous.  Zimmerman's supporters try to demonize Trayvon by pointing out the fact that he was suspended from school when he was killed because of marijuana.  Great, could this be any more irrelevant to what happened?  On the other side, the hate directed towards Zimmerman is appalling.  A black political group, the NBPP, placed a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman.  Many others label Zimmerman as an old-fashioned white racist and claim he had the intent to kill Trayvon because he was black.  Without knowing the situation, this is a ridiculous claim to make, especially since Zimmerman is Hispanic.

I can somewhat agree with people who say that if Trayvon was white, this would never have happened, but I don't think this means Zimmerman was being racist.  As a neighborhood watchman, he has that responsibility to watch out for people who don't belong.  Is that racist?  Quite possibly, but is it true?  Yes.  However, with that said, in a community that is over 30% African-American, Zimmerman can't make the case that Trayvon doesn't belong simply because he is black.  Therefore, I do believe there were other legitimate reasons other than race that Zimmerman had for believing Trayvon to be suspicious.

For my junior theme, I am researching why crime rates are different across different neighborhoods, and I think cases like these play a big role because they demonstrate racial discrimination and generate hate between races, which develops racial stereotypes.  These stereotypes alone can elevate crime because people who are discriminated against because their race acts a certain way get a confused idea of what is acceptable, and the stereotypes become sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this certain case, what people will remember as the final storyline is that a black person who was suspended for marijuana was shot by a racist, overprotective neighborhood watchman.  That story that the media is telling us builds on stereotypes that black people are delinquents (because Trayvon was suspended) and whites are racist.  These are not reasonable conclusions at all (Zimmerman wasn't even really Caucasian), but it's what people are drawing from them because of the media.  The stereotypes being formed about African-American people being delinquents that keeps getting built upon by the media makes them believe that is what they are supposed to and allowed to be, so they become much more likely to commit a crime.

Is anyone at fault in this event?  Was this racial profiling?  What effects do you think this event (or the severe reactions to this event) will have on racial stereotypes in the future?

The Truth About Kony 2012

In just a matter of days, this video of Kony 2012 has gone viral thanks to the power of social media on the Internet.  Joseph Kony is the leader of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a group that has forced more than 60,000 children in Uganda to become foot soldiers and give their lives for a conflict they know nothing about, yet him and his group have been inactive since 2006.

Invisible Children is the nonprofit organization of filmmakers that created that video to make Kony "famous", so that people would become aware and donate to their charity, and they have been extremely successful in doing so.  However, only 31% of their donations by their own admission in 2011 actually went to the cause they aided, while the rest went to filmmaking materials.

Now, I just gave you a lot of facts and links, but what does this all mean?

Well, for starters, it shows the sway the Internet can have on people.  In the book White Noise, by Don DeLillo, one of the young characters, Heinrich, when asked a question of why he thinks a certain way or how he knows something, multiple times responds that the "radio said" so (22, 34).  This book was written in the 1980's (when people actually listened to the radio), but it captures the idea of how people can be influenced by technology--nowadays, the Internet.  People simply watch a video about how terrible this man Kony is, and they give their money without ever wondering what they're money is actually doing and how it will help; they just know they feel good that they "helped" a cause.

This brings me to another point: the feeling of donating has a huge effect on people.  People who donate always feel as if they have done something magnificent to help the world, even though they have no connection whatsoever to what they are donating to, which also relates to the book White Noise when a minor character Alfonse says, "For most people there are only two places in the world.  Where they live and their TV set" (66).  For the people who donate, they are donating to a place they only know of because they saw it on the Internet.  As long as it's not where they are, it doesn't matter to them where it is, they still get the feeling of superiority as they are helping the world.  This is also the reason why anti-Kony posts are all over Facebook and Twitter; people get the good feeling that they are helping the movement by raising awareness.

I'm not saying people who donate or try to raise awareness do not help the cause, but I think they are doing it more for their own benefit rather than the people in Uganda because they can't possibly feel as if they can connect to those children.  This is not a bad thing, as it definitely leads to more money donated, but I do think it would be even better if more people took the time to learn about the facts of the cause they're donating to and the organization they are giving their money to because I highly doubt that so many people would give their money to help some young adults make films when they could maybe do something more beneficial with it to help.

TV Tokenism: Psych

For my TV Tokenism assignment, I decided to do the show Psych, which is a comedy/drama that airs on USA Network and is in its 6th season.

Here is a cast photo of Psych.  Source

This cast photo is very typical of dramas on major networks because the main central character (Shawn, shown sitting in front) who is fully developed and complex is white.  Of course, he has a token minority partner, Gus, who sticks out in this picture not only because he is the single minority but also because of his bright shirt--almost as if to say, "Look we have a minority character in a big role".  Gus is a major character, but he is less developed and does't receive nearly as much screen time as Shawn.  He is also much more professional and typically  better dressed than Shawn, which contradicts racist stereotypes.

0-1:08

They're Just Like Magic

In class this week, we have talked a lot about the idea of TV Tokenism, the inclusion of minorities in TV shows or movies which falsely depict real life.  In other words, it's when TV shows or movies are starting put in minority actors, often in high authority roles, just to give people the idea that they're not racist because in the past, as OC writes, minorities were often shown in less respected roles that only increase stereotypes.  Now, however, I fear that the ball has turned far in the opposite direction with unrealistic depictions of minorities so that filmmakers can avoid being labeled racist.

One small example of this is in shot of the show How I Met Your Mother, which airs on CBS, shown below.

This one shot from How I Met Your Mother is an example of a common TV show scene with minority characters shown in back to create the false illusion of diversity.

The characters in front are the main characters (this show is not normal because none of the major characters are minorities), but I want to talk about the idea of "token faces", so let's look at the people in the background.  Out of the limited people in the background, I can make out for sure a black man and a hispanic woman.  I know this is just one shot from one show, but this happens all the time.  If you ever stop and look at the faces in the background of a movie or TV show, you'll notice minorities appear--like magic--in what seems to be a utopia of racial relations, which is far from reality.

So if this isn't realistic, why is it done?

It's simply a reaction to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People's (NAACP) criticism of the system.  In the early 2000's, the NAACP complained that black people were always portrayed as criminals and thieves, which advances the stereotypes against them.  Since then, networks feared being labeled racist by viewers, so an easy way to trick viewers into thinking they are including minorities is by just putting them in the background, so that they are visible without playing an actual role.

Another way many TV shows and movies use tokenism to avoid being labeled racist is by creating the "authority minority" character.  This character usually plays a big role with a respected title (such as "Dr." or "boss") and is often the best dressed man to reverse stereotypes, but isn't very central to the plot and doesn't receive much screen time.

For example, in the movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, black actor Morgan Freeman plays the role of God.  Could there be a more prominent role than God?  No, of course not.  Interestingly though, neither of those two casts (Bruce Almighty or Evan Almighty) feature another minority.  What Morgan Freeman allows the filmmakers to do in these movies is say, "Our cast is almost entirely white, but no, we're not racist because we have a black man playing God.  How could you possibly call us racist?"-And this is essentially what the "authority minority" character does: eliminate racist ideals by putting minorities in respect roles, even though they are not central to the plot.

I understand that how television portrays people can have a major effect, but why we have to do this,why we filmmakers have to even think about race when selecting a cast still puzzles me.  Americans are very sensitive on the issue of race.  In this scenario, if you don't feature privileged minorities in your film, you're racist, and this is ridiculous.  I'm not saying I think we should have all white casts, but simply that I believe race shouldn't matter (even though it clearly does) because this is all fake.

Have Americans become too sensitive on the issue of race?  How should casts be chosen?

Forgotten Goals

Can you think of a time you told yourself you were going to definitely do something but never actually did?  My guess is almost everyone can because everybody does this.

For example, think of your New Years Resolution.  It's just over a month into the year now, and statistics show that by this time 36% of these resolutions have already failed, and much more than half will be failed by the end of the year.  Why is this number so alarmingly high?  Are Americans really that bad at sticking to what they say?

The reason is simply because people have the false idea that change or action will be easy in the future even though it isn't in the present, and therefore they don't make it a priority.

It's easy to say, "I will go on a diet next week, so I can eat this cake," or "I did bad last semester but I wasn't really trying as hard as I could have, so I'll start trying, and I'll doing much better," or even "I'm working too hard.  I will take a vacation soon."  However, unless you actually make it a priority to make the effort to carry out these plans, you will never get them done because if you can't start a diet now, or start working harder now, or find the time to take a break, you won't be able to in two weeks.

In the book we're reading in class, White Noise by Don DeLillo, the narrator in his stream of thoughts says that his wife "plans ski trips that we never take" (15), and then he quickly moves on to some other thought.  After reading that, I wanted him to go back and answer why they never actually go on trips, but then I realized I knew the answer: their everyday life like work and children got in the way.

People are always allowing their everyday busy life to push aside their goals they set and fail to realize what's happening.  Therefore, they continuously set new goals thinking that in the future they will magically be better than they are now, so they will be able to do them.

What is the best way to make sure the goals you set don't get forgotten?

The Effects of Linsanity

Just a week ago, Jeremy Lin was nobody.  Now, he is the most talked about athlete in all of sports and America's man of the hour.  Who really is this man and how did he come to be at the center of the sports world?

Jeremy Lin has burst out on the scene by leading
the underperforming Knicks to five straight wins.

For those of you who still don't know, Lin is an Asian-American professional basketball player who attended Harvard University, and after going undrafted and being cut by two teams, he has landed on the NBA's biggest stage with the New York Knicks where he was thrust into the starting job last week.  Since then, he has taken the NBA by storm by winning five consecutive games for the disappointing Knicks team playing without their two "stars" (Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire) and setting the all-time NBA record for points in his first four starts.  He truly is living the American Dream.

Lin's play, however, is not only translating into wins for his team, he is generating mass revenue and excitement for the league.  He has gotten the nation's largest city to become ecstatic about basketball, and in turn, his jersey is in higher demand than anybody else and ticket prices have skyrocketed up 27% for the Knicks.  How has one man had such a tremendous effect?

The answer in my opinion is simply because he's Asian.  There is no doubt that people have preconceived notions of what an NBA basketball player is supposed to look like, and there is no doubt that a 6'3 Asian-American man who graduated Harvard with a 3.1 GPA and is devoutly Christian does not fit the standard profile.  He is simply breaking every stereotype, and that is exactly what makes Lin's story so incredible and inspirational.

One fan turns his Carmelo Anthony jersey in a Lin one.

His story will have a tremendous effect on Asian-Americans as it gives them a true hero that is making a real impact in American culture.  Yao Ming couldn't be this heroic figure to Asians for two reasons: he was from mainland China, and he was 7'5, which automatically qualifies him as a lock to be in the NBA.  Lin, on the other hand, is much more relatable to, as he resembles many Asian-Americans who have never before had an iconic figure so similar to them.

He is as meaningful to the Asians in America as Jackie Robinson was to Blacks because he is being that "trailblazer" who sets the way for many to follow.  I'm not predicting Lin to continue his dominance or be a legendary figure as Jackie Robinson was, but culturally, his impact will be very similar, as I believe he has generated hope and inspiration for Asian-American basketball players to continue.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Lin's glory dies out and he returns to being a below average basketball player.  His story has been blown up by the Internet and has reached everywhere, so his impact on the next generation has already been made.