Helpful Sites for Research

*Note: This is not the post you should be commenting on for the Blog Project. The post you should respond to is the previous one on The Joker from The Dark Knight--please scroll down to it or click here to read and comment on that post.*

I'm making this post to give you a list of sites that might be helpful for you as you begin to look for secondary sources for the next phase of the Analytical Research Paper: the Secondary Source Integration assignment. This list includes blogs, news sites, and research databases that I like to use, so of course it is a limited selection. If you have more suggestions you'd like to add to the list, please feel free to do so in the comment section.

"Is this all research, or just some kind of stress test for the table?" -Buffy Summers

http://jezebel.com (focuses on feminism, sexuality, women's issues, and pop culture)

http://feministing.com (a more "serious" version of Jezebel; Racialicious's sister site)

http://racialicious.com (focuses on race, politics, and pop culture)

http://aldaily.com (compiles academic articles, book reviews, and essays from a variety of sources on all different issues)

http://slate.com (like Jezebel or Racialicious, but without a focus on particular identity issues--though, of course, carries its own unstated biases)

http://salon.com (Like Slate, but with more of an arts focus)

http://npr.org (Short, smart articles and radio segments on basically everything)

http://huffingtonpost.com (Compiles articles and opinion pieces--including some from OSU professors--on anything newsworthy; left-leaning)

http://nytimes.com (It's the New York Times. Online.)

http://economist.com (The Economist is a respected UK magazine focusing on contemporary global politics)

http://newyorker.com (Arts, culture, and politics; includes archive of articles back to the 1920s)

http://chronicle.com (The Chronicle of Higher Education publishes good articles on a variety of topics, focusing on issues that affect academia)

http://thenation.com (The Nation is a left-leaning politics and culture magazine)

http://library.osu.edu (OSU's library site. In addition to looking up books, try using some of the resources available via the "Research Databases" link. In particular, you might be interested in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, which includes not only definitions but also timelines and etymology); "Academic Search Complete," which searches through all OSU's archives for articles; or "JSTOR," which compiles peer-reviewed analytic articles.

As I said, please feel free to add more to this list!

Monsters Inc.

Monsters Inc. is not your typical monster movie. The monsters in this movie look like monsters but only act scary because it is there job to be scary so that they have power for their to city. In the end they realize that they can use laugher to power their city instead. The monsters that they can thank for that are James "Sulley" Sullivan, Mike Wazowski, and Boo, the human child. Without everything they went through they never would have known that they don’t need screams. Sulley and Mike did everything that they could to project Boo and get her home before anyone found her and tried to hurt her because there were bad monsters in there city that were not so nice to other monsters and they were not nice to the humans that they scared when they went through their doors. So what is it that makes Sulley and Mike so different?

The idea of monsters in our culture has evolved and been changed for so long that we are now able to acknowledge them in ways beyond their classic, simple, scariness. A very recent film that both lampoons and honors monsters and monster culture is Pixar’s Monsters Inc. The opening scenes are designed to look dark and scary, with silhouettes and glowing eyes, the scene quickly breaks down into a comedy, setting the lighthearted tone for the whole movie. However, in every story, the interest comes from conflict. In Monsters Inc. the enemies come in the form of Randall, a competing monster, and Henry Waternoose, the head of the company. We have now entered a sort of meta-monster story, in which there are monsters among monsters. How does the setting in which ALL characters are [visual] monsters affect our perceptions of them? In this world where everyone is a monster, what makes the villains more monstrous than the heroes?

In the Monster Inc. the main characters James “Sulley” Sullivan and Mike Wazowski both have monster looking appearances but they do not have evil hearts. In this movie, we no longer see any mysterious murdering, blooding scenes or anything relating to violence. There are more funny stories and moving scenes being showed on two little ugly monsters Sulley and Mike. We see Sulley and Mike as monsters but they both see the little girl, Boo as a monster. Nevertheless, they try to protect her and send her back in her door before anybody sees them. From this act, we can see that not all of the monsters are really monsters in the city. Generally, people judge abnormal species as monsters because we know nothing about their species. If we learn to understand all those monsters and react to them properly, they would not seem like such monsters. Similarly, Sulley and Mike have shown us that not all monsters are always bad. “Seeing is believing,” if we see Sulley and Mike as good monsters then we can believe that there is hope for other monsters like them. We cannot judge anybody by our first impression; we need to learn more about them before passing final judgment on them. How would things be different if the kids were not scared of the monsters coming out of their doors if they knew that they only did it because they had to?

This makes one wonder when they watch this movie. Thinking why do they do what they do if they are not evil? Why didn’t they do just use laughter all the time instead of scaring all these kids? You can get a kid to laugh a lot easier than getting them scared all the time? I mean after a while the kids will learn something is going to come out of their closest and scare them and be ready for it and learn to not be scared and so the monsters can’t get their power. I don’t know a kid that does love to laugh and have someone make them laugh. So in the best interest of the monsters power supply they should just make them laugh and get the power that way.

Group 6: Carlos Hyde, Megan Iverson, Eric Ringman, and Zuoqi “George” Sun

Dr. Frankenstein's Creature

Dr. Frankenstein's Creature: Would have acceptance by his creator helped him be accepted by society?

So many characters in both literature and film have been characterized as monsters because of their appearances. The creature created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein appears to be a monster, but he truly is not one. His creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, is really the true monster for rejecting his creation and not taking responsibility for it. The creature is lonely and wants to be accepted and loved, but instead it only finds rejection and hatred. The creature is truly scary looking and very large, which is very intimidating and frightening, but he is truly misunderstood by humans and reacts violently. Do you believe if he had been accepted by Victor Frankenstein, he would have been accepted by others even though he was so large and scary looking? Have you ever not accepted someone based upon their acceptance only to find later that they truly are a good person?

Everyone needs to be loved by someone, and certainly from the very beginning of Frankenstein's life he was rejected and that's all he knew. His creator even thought he was hideous and wanted nothing to do with him. Even though his creator only wanted to accomplish the feat of creating human life, he didn't even want to acknowledge that he had created such a hideous monster. Since Frankenstein's creature never had a mother and Victor abandoned him, he had no one to nurture him and teach him important life skills and how to act in a humane manner. All Frankenstein's creature wanted was to be accepted and one day find someone that would love him. His hope of having companionship is also lost when Victor destroys the female mate that he began creating only to devastate the creature once again and make him feel rejected and alone. Do you think if Victor would have stayed around to teach and love his creature, he would have had a better quality of life? Do you think a female mate would have helped the creature turn his life around?

One of the worst tragedies for Frankenstein's creature was social discrimination. People were afraid of the creature's appearance, and this fear prohibited people from knowing his inner beauty. Although Frankenstein's creature was given life, he never had an opportunity to really live and enjoy life. Frankenstein's creature was very lonely and just wanted to find companionship and acceptance. Do you believe his loneliness contributed to his violence?

The setting of this story was influenced by Shelly's surroundings and it seems fitting that the creature would escape into the woods because it was isolated and a place where he would not have much human interaction. The story of Frankenstein certainly is a sad one and definitely targets our theme of "monsters," but once again it is a monster that is misunderstood because of his appearance and the true monster is really someone that does not appear to be a monster at all and that is his creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein.

Group 5
Contributing Members: Bryan Kuhlman, Charlita Hagwood, Lu Su & Kessy Evans

Hell Houses: Angels or Demons? [Group 4]

Halloween means different things to different people. Some will enjoy free candy from neighbors, others will dress up just for a party, but thousands around the nation spend their Halloween screaming in a haunted house. However, the idea behind traditional haunted houses has been revamped by Churches across America. The first of these “Hell Houses” was founded in the late 1970’s by one Jerry Falwell, the house itself donning the name “Scaremare”. Now, thousands of Churches have made their own Hell Houses, all with one goal in mind. Some Pastors believed regular Church was not effective enough. Through scripts and some fake blood, they want to scare young adults into conversion. The personifications of sin in American Hell Houses are excessive and inappropriate.

Instilling fear is no way to get someone to see your point of view. It is the definition of scare tactics. Now, there is a documentary about Hell Houses simply titled “Hell House”, and it shows how one Church scared their patrons. Compared to other similar organizations, it is modest. Among the common sins addressed by Hell Houses, abortion and homosexuality are a favorite. In reality, an abortion is as simple as a needle and not walking for a few hours. These staged abortions have enough blood to make Dracula need a doggie bag. Liters of fake blood cover the set while a blond-haired innocent teen cries for the manic doctors to end the pain. They laugh in her face, while one screams they may need to amputate the poor girl’s leg. Somehow instead of teaching how abortions are immoral, or how all life is important, they make it about the girl. Depicting her physical pain comes before caring about life.

This evangelistic take on homosexual marriage is equally skewed. Suddenly the word gay becomes synonymous with “godless sodomite”, or even “Satanist”. As the curtain rises, you view a satanic figure asking two women if they swear to be freaks, and to live in a repulsive, disgusting lust for one another. They nod in agreement. Openly admitting how confused they are, and how a life without God lead them to such a terror. The act sits in the bottom of my stomach like a bitter dish that refuses to digest. Homosexuality does not equal Satanism. These Hell Houses are teaching young adults to fear gays because they have a powerful bond with the Mourning Star.

Their intentions might be as pure as the Virgin Mary, but both the ends and means are inappropriate. Targeting impressionable teens like this is not the right thing to do. Even if sitting down with them and using logical reasoning and evidence to prove an idea to them does not work, these Hell Houses are still unjustified. This is not teaching the Bible, but intolerance. You may think homosexuals, atheists and Muslims are the epitome of evil, but you have no right to attack them for just their harmless lifestyle, or beliefs.

Discussion Questions:

1. Some Hell Houses are visited by tens of thousands of people each year. They are becoming more popular, and common across the nation. Have you every visited one of these establishments? If so, what impression did it leave upon you? If not, do you possibly know someone that has attended a Hell House?

2. Can the ends really justify the means in this case? Will exaggerations brought on by bias properly educate young adults, or are those exaggerations a means of achieving another goal? Are these going to help or harm patrons?

3. Upon our research, we stumbled across videos that showed some of the graphic misinterpretations Hell Houses flaunt. These acts may be appropriate for teenagers able to make such decisions for themselves, but the cut off age for these Halloween attractions was twelve years old. Many parents took even younger children to see the show. Do you think this is an appropriate cut off age? On a more significant note, how old need a person be to be religiously independent?

Shrek x2

  


    In the movie, Shrek is no doubt categorized as a monster. Everyone in town is terrified of him and thinks that he will eat them if they even get near. However, throughout the movie you see that that is not the case at all. Yes, he is angry and rude, but not once does he kill or eat anyone. He lives simply and peacefully and by himself. But then his swamp gets invaded and goes on a journey to find whoever is responsible. Following Shrek on his journey, you begin to see that the only reason he is even angry is because society makes him out to be a monster. They dehumanize him by making and putting up posters of him eating civilians so anytime he is seen, people just come after him with pitchforks and lit torches. It almost becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They keep making him out to be such a heartless monster that soon it is what he becomes. He isolates himself and is just bitter from what society has done to him. i think this is a crucial point because 'monsters' are made this way. If you keep calling someone something and treating them a certain way, soon that is how they perceive themselves and how they think they should or may as well act.

       Shrek is viewed by most people as a vile, bone-crunching, blood-thirsty monster. Most of the characters believe that ogres are wild beasts, reacting purely to raw instinct – killing the innocent.
People make the mistake of judging him before they really know anything. Shrek has layers, “like an onion”, this metaphor clearly illustrates that Shrek is a far more complicated character, with much
more depth than “Rawr!!! I’m going to eat you.”  Shrek’s appearance is not a pleasant one, but people assume that his vulgar exterior is analogous to him behaving as a monster, demonstrating the consequences
of stereotyping. The movie encourages the audience to look beyond appearance and first impressions, because there is generally always more depth to a person, than at first glance.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ogres+are+like+onions&aq=0


Why do you think Shrek is so adamant about being an onion, rather than something sweeter, like chocolate cake? Do you think instinct had anything to do when people react to seeing Shrek (FEAR)? Does this
justify their behavior?

Mara and Sam

Shrek/Group 3

Shrek and Fiona have the monster ugly looking but they have the kindest heart in this world. They would fight for each other. Their love story is great as us and even better. They would fight for their friends, Donkey and Puss in boots. They see friendship as one of the most important things in the world. On the other hand, the real monster may not have the devilish look. It is the evil heart they have shows the evilness. They will betray on anybody even their families and friends. There are no real love and trust for them. And it is so easy for them to trick people with their humanized trustable look. But they can never be the real king and princess.

Shrek he is a green ogre, which is large head, strong body and monstrous look. They often depicted in fairy-tales. Shrek he likes living alone in his own swap peacefully. But he is forced to go battle due to lots fairytale beings come to his swap. In order to get back his own privacy and quiet swap, he has been ordered to complete hard mission, which is to prevent the princess Fiona from marring the evil Lord Farquaad. Due to the monster appearance of Shrek, it’s hard to link him as a hero. As usual, Prince is always the character who is going to save Princess form danger. It turns out to be we cannot judge people just according to their outlook. Even Shrek looks like a monster with wired personalities, but he has a beautiful and pure heart. His courage and brave for fighting with evil and finally saves Princess Fiona should consider him as a truly hero indeed.

--by Tracy and Lisa