Fall 2013 - Issue 5

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

VOLUME CXXVII, ISSUE 4

O

THE MILLENNIAL CONVERSATION ( PAG E 2 )

MERITS OF BUZZFEED ( PAG E 5 )

JUMBOS TRY GROUPER ( PAG E 1 0 )

2 CREATIVE COMMONS

THE YOUNG FOLKS by Molly Mirhashem

DO YOU GROUPER? by Alison Pinkerton and Nader Salass

10

BRENDA LEE

12

KNAR BEDIAN

NORTH OF BOSTON by Anjali Shankar

, READING SOCIETY S PALM by Mike Schneider

20

CREATIVE COMMONS

C

MEDIA MADNESS by Robert Collins The Observer has been Tufts’ student publication of record since 1895. Our dedication to in-depth reporting, journalistic innovation, and honest dialogue has remained intact for over a century. Today, we offer insightful news analysis, cogent and diverse opinion pieces, creative writing, and lively reviews of current arts, entertainment, and culture. Through poignant writing and artistic elegance, we aim to entertain, inform, and above all challenge the Tufts community to effect positive change.

22

EDITORS editor-in-chief Molly Mirhashem managing editor Nicola Pardy production director Ben Kurland asst. production director Bernita Ling section editors Anika Ades Justin Kim Aaron Langerman Moira Lavelle Gracie McKenzie Alison Pinkerton Kumar Ramanathan Nader Salass Evan Tarantino Flo Wen publicity director Stephen Wright photography director Knar Bedian photography editor Alison Graham art director Robert Collins lead artists Griffin Quasebarth Eva Strauss lead copy editors Liana Abbott Sarah Perlman copy editors George Esselstyn Eve Feldberg Brett Mele Katharine Pong MT Snyder Nate Williams staff writers Ellen Mayer

CONTRIBUTORS Izel Maras Ariana Nestler Hongye Wu

COVER BY: Alison Graham

November 11, 2013 Volume CXXVII, Issue 5 Tufts Observer, since 1895 Tufts’ Student Magazine

TABLE OF CONTENTS The Young Folks by Molly Mirhashem 2 feature Why BuzzFeed Isn’t Killing Journalism by Gracie McKenzie 5 opinion & culture Alt Lit: Scribing the Millennial Voice by Nick Hathaway 8 arts Do You Grouper? by Alison Pinkerton and Nader Salass 10 campus & prose North of Boston by Anjali Shankar 12 poetry inset Through Our Eyes 13 photo & prose Autumn Wines by Ben Zuckert 17 poetry Youth and Optimism vs. the Job Market by Katharine Pong 18 News Reading Society’s Palm by Mike Schneider 20 opinion & culture Media Madness by Robert Collins 22 arts & culture Rap Renaissance by Nader Salass 24 arts campus Ribelle: Four-Star Fever Dream by Anika Ades 26 off blotter

By Moira Lavelle and Aaron Langerman 28 police

RE FE AT U

THE YOUNG FOL MOLLY MIRHASHEM

CATHERINE ROSEMAN 10

TUFTS OBSERVER

DECEMBER 12, 2011

FE

E UR AT

D

o a quick search of “Millennials” on most news sites, and it unearths hundreds of results, boasting titles like, “Do Millennials Stand a Chance in the Real World?”, “Are Millennials the Most Narcissistic Generation Yet?”, and even: “Will Tapas Bring Millennials to Olive Garden?” While the Internet is overflowing with these stories, the “Millennials” beat isn’t reserved for short digital quips, nor is it limited to online searches. Back in May, TIME dedicated an entire cover story to “The Me Me Me Generation,” while a few months earlier the New Yorker published, “Semi-Charmed Life,” a feature story about the lives of twentysomethings. No matter how many writers, bloggers, and laypeople cite studies and pen rants about the onslaught of broke, selfish, young people who can’t get jobs, it seems that everyone is trying to get a word in about Generation Y. For whatever reason, the media seems to have a compulsively reductive urge to define and understand twentysomethings.

After reading many, many articles (“articles” being loosely-defined here, ranging from longform print pieces to short online blurbs) that discuss and/or analyze Millennials, it seems that all the pieces can be sorted among five main categories: the critical, the didactic, the pitying, the mocking, and the defensive. Most of these categories are self-explanatory. The defensive refers almost exclusively to the pieces written by Millennials, loudly proclaiming why we are not broke, self-obsessed, jobless, or whatever the claim may be. (Recently, a greater number of defensive-style stories by non-Millennials have emerged.) With few exceptions, these Millennialauthored defensive pieces come across as whiny and entitled, which does not exactly help the case that older generations have surmounted against us.

The critical, didactic, and pitying pieces can more or less be lumped together, with only small nuances.

These are the pieces that identify what our generation is doing wrong and either rebuke us for it, offer some sort of instructions for how to fix our problems, or simply express a sentiment of condolences. These are the “Just in! Millennials don’t care about social problems!” stories, or the how-to’s condescendingly crafted by Baby Boomers to critique the lifestyles of today’s youth. Considered together, these three themes represent the majority of Millennial-focused reporting.

On the other end of the spectrum, the mocking or satirical pieces about Generation Y offer some of the

most interesting case studies. A survey-like comedy post from the New Yorker website back in September, titled “A Lease Application for Millennials” mocks the lazy, entitled attitude that many writers and observers have tacked onto young people today. The piece includes lines like: “Parents’ bank-account number: _____. When have they sworn they would ‘cut you off ’ by?” It goes on to poke fun at the media obsession with college hookup culture, positing, after a question about criminal history: “Is it a crime to hook up with random people?” The author of this particular piece, Ethan Kuperberg, is a Millenial himself (he graduated from Yale in 2011), calling into question whether he’s mocking his generation or simply commenting on the constant urge to talk about it.

When it comes to the defensive-style narratives, there is no shortage of content here either. Most sport uncreative titles, like “Why Millennials Aren’t Lazy, Entitled Narcissists,” and present stale arguments that have been regurgitated ad nauseam. (Perhaps one of the only clever responses was the TIME Millennials tumblr, where many overeager Millennials photoshopped the TIME “Me Me Me Generation” cover to display ridiculous photos of themselves accompanied by doctored headlines. While this retort showcased definite comedic value, it certainly didn’t possess any actual eloquence or formalized counterpoint.)

In addition to these fairly consistent categories of Millennial-focused stories, the fundamental claims within these stories also fall within a few overused camps. The most popular of these topics are narcissism, laziness, and a lack of financial stability or job security. Allegations of narcissism in relation to Millennials become increasingly frustrating as one considers the changing technological landscape of our time. While today’s young people have a constant Internet catalog of our every move preserved through social media, older generations don’t have these comprehensive reminders. Scanning through one’s own Facebook statuses from 2007 can be a painful souvenir of immaturity or youthful stupidity that many Millennials have likely forgotten (or willfully erased from memory). Without these mementoes, we could perhaps forget many of our own tendencies from six or seven years ago. Take social media out of the picture, and throw another 25 or 30 years into the mix.

This may sound snarky, but do today’s older-andwiser generations really remember exactly what they were like at our age? Perhaps they’re being a little too critical, since they reaped the benefits of a more ephemeral coming-of-age, swept under the rug as time rolled on.

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

3

RE FE AT U

I say this not on behalf of Millennials, and not as a critique of other generations, but rather as a plea for productive conversation: let’s put the Millennials debate to bed.

We are the first generation to grow up with such a large influence of social media—but this is old news.

We’re certainly the first generation to grow up with the capability to snap “selfies” and plaster them all over the Internet. But these platforms are nothing more than enablers of our tendencies. Social media did not turn us into narcissists; these platforms act an outlet to express a preexisting desire for attention, and the reassurance of our self-worth. These desires are not unique to young people. Millennials are often the early adopters of new technology, but anyone with adult Facebook friends can confirm that self-absorbed Internet frivolity is not limited to the under-30 age bracket. Similarly, the claims of laziness, financial troubles, and joblessness are directly related to the current economic situation in the US. Direct comparisons of one generation to another cannot be soundly established, since there is no way to control for these ever-changing circumstances.

All that being said, I don’t mean to get sucked into a “Millennial speaks”-style defense. The underlying fact of the matter is: we’re wasting our breath. (As well as our clicks, likes, and retweets.) We’ve beaten this debate into the ground by now. Setting aside the different ways people write about Millennials, and the themes these pieces usually embody, let’s take a quick look at the whole practice. Why spend so much time and effort defining and reducing an entire generation to a few key concepts? This idea is inherently flawed, and ultimately, this type of writing is rarely constructive. Millennials don’t live a separate existence from all other generations, so why should we be examined in this way? On an everyday basis, many young people interact with parents, bosses, professors, customers, and strangers who don’t occupy the same age bracket; thus, we should not be examined and analyzed in a way that suggests a quarantined lifestyle from the rest of the world. This tactic of preaching down to the entirety of a younger generation, as though we inhabit an isolated world, is pointless and shortsighted.

4

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

On top of this, as a term, “Millennial” is a very vague identifier. The birth dates it encompasses are not always consistent, and neither are the details about who the category references. The fundamental vagueness of the very concept of Millennials reveals an important fact: it’s impossible to lump all the members of an entire generation into a handful of characteristics. It accomplishes nothing to hypothesize that “all Millennials are narcissists,” since this is a generalization about a particular subset of young people. All too often, when the term “Millennials” is used, many are referencing young, white Americans from the upper or middle classes. Given the exclusionary nature of the term, sweeping claims become even more dangerous.

Among Millennials, there are narcissists, sloths, and poor financial planners—but the same can certainly be said for older generations. I say this not on behalf of Millennials, and not as a critique of other generations, but rather as a plea for productive conversation: let’s put the Millennials debate to bed.

Rather than hypothesizing and generalizing about young people as a whole, let’s pay attention to individual cases. We should be celebrating the accomplishments of the talented youth, and examining the shortcomings of the less promising members of our generation, as a way to understand the factors leading up to each outcome.

Few would dispute the wrongness of collapsing an entire race, gender, or class into a category of predictable behavior. While the concept of stereotyping young people may carry much less gravity than these examples, the same rule still applies. There are more than 85 million people in the US who are between 10 and 30 years old.

Chances are that we’re not all on the same page. There are an amazing number of accomplished under-30s out there—let’s move on from the lazy habit of cutting corners and making guesses, and pay attention to what Millennials are actually doing. O

O

PI

why buzzfeed isn’t killing journalism

N IO N

gracie mckenzie In 2012, one particular news website broke the news that John McCain was about to endorse Mitt Romney; exclusively shared a newly-discovered 1981 video of Obama speaking at an anti-racist and feminist rally; and published the first in-depth profile of weightlifter Sarah Robles, who lives in poverty despite three national titles.

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

5

N IO PI N

O

I

f you didn’t read these particular pieces, you probably glanced at least one of the news outlet’s most popular stories that year: “The 25 Most Awkward Cat Sleeping Positions,” “40 Things That Will Make You Feel Old,” or “50 Unexplainable Black & White Photos”—each of which was “read” over 3.5 million times. Or maybe you just scrolled through the cute animal photos.

That’s right; I’m talking about BuzzFeed.

In recent years, there’s been a constant refrain that the death of journalism is near, and that it’s all due to the popularity of websites like BuzzFeed. But I’m not convinced that’s true. While the site started as a platform for detecting and spreading viral Internet content, it’s now poised to establish itself as a real player in the online media industry, as well as journalism in general.

I want to be very clear, though: between posting photos without credit, republishing other sites’ content before asking permission, spreading factual inaccuracies, and trying to tell the story of the Egyptian Revolution in 22 Jurassic Park GIFs, BuzzFeed does a lot of objectionable things. I take issue with some of BuzzFeed’s actions both as a journalist and a consumer—and I’m not alone.

Last summer, New Yorker contributor Joe Veix became a former BuzzFeed community contributor after his satirical post titled “The Top 10 DUMBEST BuzzFeed Lists You’re EMBARRASSED To Say You CLICKED” (sic) was deleted from the site.

BuzzFeed editors declared his post “meanspirited” and banned him. He posted a screenshot on his personal Tumblr blog for posterity. A month later, he shared an article he’d written for indie magazine Death & Taxes on that same Tumblr, covering a teenage social media trend of documenting stairwell disasters. Hours later,

BuzzFeed posted a suspiciously similar article, without crediting the text to Veix or the photos to the original Twitter users.

BuzzFeed critics say these are not isolated incidents, but rather examples of a disturbing pattern. It seems that profit has become the goal here, not originality or insightful news coverage, which leads to a cycle demanding “click-bait” journalism posts as quickly as possible, abandoning ethics, and therefore citations, along the way.

In contrast with such criticism, BuzzFeed announced in late October that it had hired Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Mark Schoofs to lead a team of around six other investigative reporters. This brings its population of journalists up to over 160—around half of the company’s employees—including foreign correspondents and a longform team led by Steve Kandell, the former editor of Spin magazine.

In September, founder Jonah Peretti posted an all-company memo on LinkedIn—for the benefit of “future employees”—detailing his vision for the next year and announcing that despite recent expenditures with these new hires, the company is now turning a profit. While the site is already eight times bigger than it was two years ago, by next September it wants to be one of the biggest on the Internet. Buzzfeed plans to stay within its established niche, looking to innovate within the bounds of the viral Internet rather than vie for control of other media markets.

That niche has proven incredibly lucrative since BuzzFeed’s founding in 2006.

When one considers quantity of posts and overall readership, BuzzFeed clearly dominates the market of pictures of cats and Ryan Gosling shirtless. Its teams of researchers pull together lists of the facts you didn’t even know you wanted to know, in a format that’s accessible to even the least-

educated reader. On the other side, since the 2011 hire of Ben Smith, a new editor-in-chief poached from the traditionally hard news outlet Politico, BuzzFeed’s politics and global news sections have improved exponentially in depth and scope, boasting significantly fewer GIFs. Above all, while the site was known originally for its software that detects the newest Internet trends combined with editorial oversight to publish the best of the finds, the staff quickly adopted social and mobile technology. This early integration has helped social media to become a cornerstone in its push for traffic, and it seems to be working—according to tracking software Scanvine, the site’s articles are shared on social media more than twice as often as those from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New Yorker.

And these articles are not just “29 Things That Are More Important Than Work Right Now.” As Smith wrote in Foreign Policy, “This is a difficult era for snobs.

The same people—disproportionately young, mobile, and well-educated—who come to BuzzFeed for entertaining pop culture, actually care about what’s happening in the world. And if you glance at your Twitter feed, you’ll probably see them sharing quite a bit of both. The new social web is increasingly serving up serious information about the economy, politics, and, yes, even foreign policy.”

Despite the sharing of more serious content, what’s getting the page views is still the lighter fare, like “Things Only People From [insert arbitrary location here] Will Understand.” At the end of the day, BuzzFeed is a profitmaking business, and those page views dictate future content and investment, as advertisers receive increasingly detailed data about our preferences. So, if the death of journalism does

High journalism is like protein; low journalism is more like chocolate 6

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

Jon Evans, media critic, TechCrunch

O PI N IO

happen because of BuzzFeed, will it be our fault? Consumers say we’re into serious news, but our preferences, and all-important clicks, indicate differently.

The relationship between that lighter fare and the more “serious” journalism is key to understanding BuzzFeed in a modern media context. Jon Evans of TechCrunch writes, “High journalism…is like protein; low journalism is more like chocolate. And there’s definitely a place in this world for good chocolate, à la The Onion and Cracked, whose stories usually manage to be about something while still being hilarious. But BuzzFeed? Not so much.”

Historically, high journalism has been funded by this low journalism. Newspapers originally ran comics and arts or leisure sections to sell copies so that they could pay their long-term reporters. But the Internet has built a more segmented media market, with each site intended to fill a specific niche. Enter BuzzFeed, with its cat memes and easy-to-read lists.

Just because we’ve become accustomed to this new media market, however, doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do things. Think about it. We’re used to a dichotomy of coverage from offline media.

As founder Peretti explains, “Can you take the BBC’s news coverage seriously when they also show Monty Python, Ricky Gervais, and Doctor Who? … The answer, of course, is yes.”

Other platforms, like ProPublica and The Atavist, are keeping investigative and longform journalism alive online, respectively. These companies, however, struggle to find funding and a wider audience, aspects with which BuzzFeed has no problem. Imagine if BuzzFeed could take the readership and profits it has already accumulated, and apply them to good innovation, as a “gateway drug,” in the words

of Executive Editor Doree Shafrir, from an interview on Poynter. Shafrir’s 7,000word story on night terrors, published on BuzzFeed in September 2012, has been viewed 160,000 times—standard for BuzzFeed, but significant for a work of online longform journalism.

When it comes to these two separate categories, BuzzFeed claims it’s not working in a dichotomy; instead, the website aims to push the limits of their criteria for publication, which doesn’t actually say anything about pop culture GIFs. According to the higher-ups, a BuzzFeed story must do three things: entertain, inform, and manifest itself as something people want to share with their friends. Returning to Evans’ metaphor, the website has the opportunity to recombine those recently separated categories of high and low journalism, so that protein-rich entrees and chocolate may coexist peacefully. Can’t imagine a dish that could accomplish that?

Check BuzzFeed: they’ve probably already published a list of 37 examples.

“Old-school editors may be uncomfortable with a home page that would feature ‘33 Startling Photos of Porn Stars With and Without Their Makeup On’ right alongside the latest intel from North Korea,” Editor-in-Chief Smith says. “But that’s pretty much an ordinary day on the web for BuzzFeed’s 40 million monthly users.”

I’m not saying that BuzzFeed, as it exists today, is ideal. Between “borrowed” content, “forgotten” creators, and factchecking “mistakes,” it can be difficult to pay attention to what is good about the website. However, it’s now built on a solid foundation of ambitious journalists, big ideas, and even Pulitzer Prizes— and founder Peretti has a track record of snatching them. You may have heard of his last venture: The Huffington Post.

N

Jonah Peretti, founder, Buzzfeed

It won’t be easy ... but there’s no reason we can’t succeed As he wrote in the all-company memo, “We are building the defining news and entertainment company for the social, mobile age. It won’t be easy…We need to learn from the smart critics, ignore the dumb haters, and maintain our sense of humor…

But there is no reason we can’t succeed.”

Just because pictures of cats and serious news and commentary coexist doesn’t mean the Internet, or online journalism, is ruined. In fact, BuzzFeed is creating a more efficient world, one that puts the emphasis on sharing, aiming for solid content across the board. Even if you disagree with BuzzFeed’s mission or execution, you still live in that new world. You have the option to build something better, or to become part of the pressure placed on the company to live up to the transformations it has promised.

Two days after contributor Veix’s parody post was deleted, after much reader backlash, Smith tweeted at Veix, “Restored your post and account, updated community guidelines: no haters unless the hate is directed at BuzzFeed. Have at it.” BuzzFeed is listening to criticism and is responding, if not as quickly as they repost articles, at least eventually.

So you shouldn’t feel like sending that BuzzFeed link about “Eggs in Exciting Holes” to a friend is embarrassing, or contributing to our downfall. Just don’t stop reading after you get to the end of the list.

Because our clicks define the company’s financial ability to make these changes, seek out the less-read, better-reported articles. I promise they’re there. In our future, high and low journalism may very well share the same web space, as they do in other media.

As Peretti said, it won’t be easy. But I’d rather be a smart critic than a dumb hater—as long as BuzzFeed keeps the dinosaurs out of articles about foreign affairs. O NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

7

RE CU LT U

Alt Lit: Scribing the Millennial Voice

KNAR BEDIAN

n July 2013, Thought Catalog published a crowd-sourced interview with the controversial Alt Lit (Alternative Literature) poet Steve Roggenbuck.

Answering questions from Twitter and Facebook, he wrote about life, the moon, couch-surfing for a year, fear of death, and his appreciation of Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.” The interview was short, scattered, and explicit, demonstrating a playful eclecticism found only on the Internet.

The interviewee, Steve Roggenbuck, is a writer who makes traditional editors cringe. His website, livemylief.com, is filled with “selfies,” profound tweets pasted onto image GIFs, and intentional misspellings (“peopel” for people, “vidoe”

I 8

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

for video, “mor” for more). In his bio, he refers to himself as a 25 year-old “Internet poet” and writes things like, “dont get me wrong IRL is beatiful, but its not quite the Internet.” In other words, you won’t find his work in the New Yorker.

Considered an influential member of the Alt Lit community, Roggenbuck has become representative of the Millennial Generation, a mainstay of the vintage-clad, PBR-sipping hipster. With a knack for social media, Alt Lit writers like Roggenbuck have spent the past decade posting their work to Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and Google Plus.

Pop Serial, one of the better-known Alt Lit magazines, has posted excerpts from Twitter and Gchat, including this ex-

change between Spencer Madsen and Elaine Sun: spencer: i havent kissed anyone since ~december shit elaine: :( kiss the next girl u see Of course, there are other Alt Lit writers who experiment in longer forms and receive praise for their efforts. Tao Lin, for example, has been compared favorably to Ernest Hemingway and Robert Musil by the New York Observer. Praised for accurately depicting the digital ennui of today’s youth, most of his novels begin with a Gchat log and contain characters with names like Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning. Some describe his writing as banal and artless, but

RE TU UL C

By Nick Hathaway others claim it captures the apathy unique to 20-somethings living in the Internet age.

Tao Lin is associated with the Alt Lit movement, but somehow avoids its harshest critics. In early 2013, Vice published an article entitled “Alt-Lit is for Boring, Infantile Narcissists.” While defending Tao Lin as having the “understated clarity and precision of Raymond Carver,” Vice criticized most other Alt Lit writers for depending on their movement to make up for “terrible” writing. Quirky references to the Internet, it seems, don’t make up for a lack of voice. Still, despite Tao Lin’s mixed reception, the overall reaction to Alt Lit as a movement has been characterized by its animosity. For every

Guardian reviewer extolling the sincerity of Tao Lin’s prose, there are several who argue that Alt Lit is the cultural equivalent of an Internet meme.

When publications are not complimenting or insulting Alt Lit, they’re trying to figure out how to define it. During an interview with Vol. 1 Brooklyn, Noah Cicero offered a different perspective on the movement, arguing that it is the resurgence of a “writerly” way of life. Much like the Ginsbergs and Rimbauds of the past, Alt Lit authors are all about “doing drugs, partying, standing on street corners in cities and thinking crazy thoughts.” Writers like Dave Eggers, Jonathan Franzen, and David Foster Wallace, once seen as edgy, are now professor-like and decidedly uncool. Even if Dave Eggers has never taught a class in his life, he still wears loose-fitting collared shirts and is a founder of McSweeney’s. He is clearly not the disenfranchised type.

So, maybe that’s it. Alt Lit is a community defined by and created for hip, young, supposedly disenfranchised, Internet-savvy kids and their similarly hip friends. Shared over Twitter and Tumblr, their short-form poems about veganism and Internet porn attract an insular audience. They share their writing online and aspire for Internet fame above validation from well-established literary magazines.

These stereotyped Millennials may appreciate the work of more conventional authors, but perhaps it doesn’t work both ways. Older readers are taken aback by the whimsicality of Steve Roggenbuck’s video poems or the elevation of Twitter to an art form. From their point of view, Alt Lit is foreign, written in the fractured dialect of a new generation.

Whenever a young writer pushes the boundaries of contemporary writing, there is bound to be some backlash. Think of Harold Bloom’s comments about David Foster Wallace and his novel Infinite Jest in a 2011 article by Lorna Koski (“Just awful,” “He can’t think he can’t write,” “No discernible talent,” etc.) Imagine how harsh he would be in response to Steven Roggenbuck’s selfies or Tao Lin’s infamous poetry reading during which he re-

peated the phrase “the next night we ate whale” for over three minutes.

Yet this explanation doesn’t account for the universality of the movement’s themes.

Tao Lin describes his work as dealing with “the arbitrary nature of the universe...confusion, [and] existential despair” amongst other topics, a claim backed by his devoted fan base and growing acceptance within the literary community. Steve Roggenbuck wants to “boost” the world, using his poetry to inspire others through the sincerity of his words. These are the few segments of the community that seem to transcend this traditional classification of Alt Lit as “egotistical” and “petty.”

Some would also say that Alt Lit encourages selfish writers who use social media solely for publicity. However, I like to think they have an extensive online presence because much of their own lives exist online. They understand what it means to develop friendships solely through emails and Facebook messages. The increasing relevance of social media has created a divide between older and younger generations demonstrated by the heated debates surrounding Alt Lit. Tao Lin and his fans understand how personal online conversations can get. They know that even a Gchat can be heartbreaking.

Alt Lit writers have been called the voices of our generation. Whether you agree completely, feel insulted, love their truncated prose, or hate it, they at least bring up interesting questions about the conflicted identity of Generation Y. We are as self-deprecating and surprisingly optimistic as Steve Roggenbuck when he covered the back of his poetry collection with reviews ranging from, “an internet bard at last,” to “the worst thing to happen to art.”

Much like Tao Lin, we have difficulties adapting to the world and find solace in browsing the Internet. Despite numerous criticisms, there is still something relatable about Alt Lit and its protagonists—something charming in a bunch of characters who complain listlessly about their lives.

On the other hand, is it really acceptable for a writer’s most comprehensive biography to be on Knowyourmeme.com? O

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

9

S CA M PU

Do you Grouper?

This new social networking site links groups of guys and girls living in cities through Facebook. You meet at a bar, you drink, you talk, you connect.

by Ali Pinkerton and Nader Salass

CREATIVE COMMONS

10

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

AM C S PU

W

ith the rise of Tinder, Yoke. me, and now Grouper, college students are beginning to rethink and engage with online dating applications which, up until recently, Millennials dismissed as something for desperate divorcés. Although matchmaking apps are steadily becoming more mainstream, a certain discomfort with the uncertainty of anonymous dating still lingers in the heads of many Millennials. A relatively new online company, Grouper Social Club, is working to shed the uneasiness that comes with anonymous get-togethers, and Tufts students are starting to notice. Attending college in the Boston area is usually associated with constant inter-collegiate mingling. However, by the end of freshman year, many Tufts students realize they spent much of the year constraining their social life to their own campus. By deflating the pressure to use online matching sites for dating, Grouper can provide an appealing resource to get the off-campus college experience that many Tufts students keep in the back of their mind.

Grouper accesses its users’ Facebook profiles to match two users for a potential date. From Facebook, Grouper gleans information from five main categories: age, educational background, profession, interests, and general lifestyle. Grouper pays close attention to users’ Facebook friend lists to prevent matching two users who already know each other. In addition, the site pulls from “likes” and tagged photos, both of which give Grouper a sense of the ways in which users enjoy spending their free time.

Once Grouper has matched two users for compatibility, these users then invite two friends each to join in on the date. Grouper refers to these two people as “wingmen” and “wingwomen” on its website, but Tufts senior Anika Ades is quick to note that the date more closely resembles a group of friends hanging out rather than an awkward set-up complicated by irrelevant friends who attend for moral support.

In her experience on Grouper dates as a Tufts student, Ades noted that her matches often attended schools of a similar caliber. “On our first date we were matched with three guys from Harvard,” she said, “and the second time we went with a bunch of Brandeis guys.” In this way, Grouper tries to ensure that users feel comfortable and well-matched by placing college students with not just other college students, but college students with similar educational backgrounds.

This is not to say, however, that Grouper prevents its users from expanding their horizons and comfort zones. One of the major draws of Grouper for Tufts

“A major draw of Grouper for Tufts students is the chance to get off campus and meet students at schools just down the road.” students is the chance to get off campus and meet students who attend schools just down the road. Ades said, “Grouper allows Tufts students to get out of the Tufts bubble.” Venturing off campus to local dives, clubs, and bars gives Tufts students the opportunity to mix with people who may study a wide variety of subjects, engage with the community in different ways, and socialize differently than Tufts kids do. Junior Ariana Nestler, who has never used Grouper, said that, “thinking about it as a casual social experience makes me more inclined to use it and get to meet some people outside of Tufts.”

For the most part, students are using Grouper for just this reason—to meet and get to know different types of people

off-campus. Because Grouper dates involve six people, most of the infamous first-date pressure and anxiety disappears. Further, because of its young, online dating-averse client base, Grouper does not necessarily market traditional candlelit “dates.” Instead, the site caters to a wide variety of users—some who are looking for a one-night stand, others for a serious relationship, and still others who just want to make more friends in an unfamiliar city. Ades commented that the site “would be best for young professionals who have just graduated and moved to a new city.”

Another Tufts senior, Alex Suarez, agreed that most Tufts students seem to use Grouper in a platonic way. The user’s intention “definitely depends on age,” he concluded, “but for the most part, college students are going on Groupers to meet new people and have fun.” He added, “I’ve never heard of anyone who was expecting to fall in love on a Grouper.”

Of course, Grouper’s user-focused interface keeps the possibility of finding a serious relationship very real. Ades commented that “Grouper is really designed in a way that allows users to choose how they will use it.” In addition, if a user chooses to take advantage of the site for more serious dating purposes, she believes that “Grouper empowers you to make an informed decision about who you are dating, but the actual site does the bulk of the work in directing you to that potential person.”

By conceptualizing the Grouper experience as a social one instead of a deliberately romantic one, Millennials—and more specifically, Tufts students—seem more open to engaging with the app. This isn’t to say that users don’t go into it with romantic expectations, but the uncomfortable burden of hooking up or dating is not nearly as present as it is in similar apps like Tinder. The casual atmosphere promoted by Grouper gives the app a lot of potential to grow increasingly popular on college campuses. O

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

11

RY ET PO 12

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

ARIANA NESTLER

IZEl maras

through our eyes

hongye wu

OCTOBER 7, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

13

hongye wu

IZEl maras

IZEl maras

OCTOBER 7, 2013 hongye wu

TUFTS OBSERVER

15

IZEl maras

16

TUFTS OBSERVER

october 7, 2013

O PR SE

ART BY EVA STRAUSS

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

17

S EW N

YOUTH AND OPTIMISM

VS.

THE JOB MARKET

by Katharine Pong

B

y all accounts, the “real world” promises economic hardship for the 90s generation as it enters the workforce—rates of unemployment, the cost of living, and amount of student debt are all unnervingly high. And yet, Millennials (defined by Pew Research Center as those born after 1980) are remarkably hopeful about their own futures.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, conditions are tough for Generation Y. Although the 2008 economic collapse affected all of the United States, it hit Millennials particularly hard. At its peak in October of 2009, the national

18

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

unemployment rate was 10 percent, but in 2010, 37 percent of 18 to 29 year olds were unemployed. This alarming statistic reflects the harsh realities Millennials face in obtaining jobs and supporting themselves.

Because of these employment difficulties, Millennials are less able to support themselves financially. According to a study by Pew Research Center, 35 percent of 18 to 32 year olds reported problems paying rents or mortgages.

Many do not live independently; in the same Pew study, 34 percent said they live in their parents’ home.

Young people’s difficulties in earning money and supporting themselves are augmented by the rising costs of higher education and consequent student debt.

Total student debt nationwide is over $1.2 trillion dollars; the average student-loan debt is over $26,000. A recent Fidelity survey of college graduates from the class of 2013 reflects an average individual debt of $35,000. These numbers will only continue to increase as colleges raise their tuitions.

These effects of the economic crisis threaten Millennials in the distant future as well. As money is tight, and many young people live paycheck-to-paycheck,

N EW S

they choose to put cash in bank accounts rather than invest in the stock market or build retirement funds for themselves.

This means they may run into challenges when nearing retirement. Furthermore, it appears that Social Security funds will run out by 2037 and that Millennials will not receive any Social Security benefits due to government actions.

Despite these bleak statistics, Generation Y is fighting hard to find a place in the nation. Pew Research Center reports that in addition to living with friends and family in order to save money, young people are cutting back their spending on alcohol, cigarettes, and cell phone services. Others decide to go back to school, taking the time to build skills before returning to or entering the job market. Tufts graduate Sam Kronish (A’13), who currently works at a start-up in Boston, noted, “I think in today’s economy it’s very hard to advance within a field with just a bachelor’s degree unless that degree is very specialized or within a tech or science space that is pretty lucrative, like computer science.”

Perhaps most remarkable is the Millennial attitude toward the future. While noting that entire generations are not “monolithic”, the Pew Research Center declared, “Whatever toll a recession, a housing crisis, a financial meltdown, and a pair of wars may have taken on the national psyche in the past few years, it appears to have hit the old harder than the young. […] Millennials [are] confident, self-expressive, liberal, upbeat and open to change.” This generation of young people is incredibly optimistic about the rest of their lives, demonstrating a level of selfassurance and hope higher than that of preceding generations.

In terms of finances, Millennials foresee eventual high economic success despite current set-backs. The Media and Public Opinion Group found that young people are the most likely to think they will enter the much-referenced “one percent” at

some point in their lives: 40.2 percent of respondents aged 18 to 29 say they will achieve this, while 12.3 percent say they already have. Moreover, only 32 percent of this same age group think they will settle into the middle class. This reflects the statistic that 73 percent of this generation believes their economic situations are getting better. Jackie Cygelman (A’13), who works at Eze Software Group, echoed this optimism in reflections on her life and those of her peers. She commented, “There was a period of time that I wasn’t settled into a job and it was really nerve-wracking, but

esteem built on the idea that individuals have a potent ability to affect change in the world around them. This conclusion reflects the prevalent idea that one Millennial articulated to the Kansas City Star: “We can be whatever we want to be. Justice will prevail.” Fueled by passion and ambition, members of this generation “are super passionate about something and really invested in it, which leads to them knowing what they want to do and going after it,” said Cygelman. “Millennials are not afraid to create their own jobs or their own world,” added Jeff Fromm, author of Mar-

Whatever toll a recession, a housing crisis, a financial meltdown, and a pair of wars may have taken on the national psyche in the past few years, it appears to have hit the old harder than the young. right now I feel solid and stable. There are definitely people from Tufts who are unemployed, but more and more are getting settled.”

The root of this confidence may be young people’s belief that because they are just starting their independent lives, their futures are full of possibilities. This includes the time and potential for significant economic mobility, further opportunity for education, and promising career prospects. Gallup polls also cite young people’s continuing belief in the ideal of the American Dream which promises success with hard work.

Another explanation is that young people today have a generational self-

keting to Millennials. Society’s heavy dependence on the Internet provides a new dimension within which young people can network and connect with others, as well as pursue and create their own economic opportunities.

When reflecting on their own experiences, these Tufts graduates expressed a sense of confidence that stems from their time at Tufts. They cite not only the advantage that Tufts’ prestigious name affords them, but also the skills and experiences they have gained. As Kronish said,“My time at Tufts taught me to keep an open mind and be patient with problems, and I think that has helped me more than almost anything else at this time.” O

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

19

N IO PI N O

READING SOCIETY’S

F

Why we should think productively about the future

uturism is an odd term. In the early 20th century, it belonged to an Italian art movement that evoked an atmosphere of speed, youth, and technology to match the contemporary world in which it was born. Manifesto of Futurism, a treatise written by the poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, heralded the perpetually approaching era of the future, rejecting the past as stagnant. The idea spread like a miniature cultural renaissance, incorporating the arts, architecture, and even a vibrant politics that promoted confrontation and conflict as a means to generate new creations and ideas. Liberated from the heavy ropes of tradition, self-selected “futurists” drew inspiration by looking along the other direction of time: toward the promise of what was to come. Over-eager, they tried to pull the future into the now.

The movement died after a generation, giving way to new artistic movements that cherished similar abstract character and vibrant expression. The term “futurism” fell by the wayside. However, I think it needs a new purposing, for a new kind of discipline. A couple of years ago, I helped start the Futurism Society at Tufts. I registered the website FuturismSociety.org, and this year I’m teaching a freshman seminar on the topic.

I should be clear: I’m not much of an artist, but I do get pretty enthusiastic talking about the future. The Futurism I do is a bit of a different art—exploring the ethics of our dreams of the future. Drawing more

20

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

from the fields of science and philosophy, the self-selected “futurists” of today would trace their conceptions to a different locale: the 1932 BBC broadcast by author H.G. Wells that called for the creation of a “Department and Professors of Foresight” to address the dire needs of a society moving too quickly, and too blindly, into the future.

Futurology, a precursor to the kind of Futurism I am advocating, was formed as a field several decades later to finally answer H.G. Wells’ call. Its name was first coined in the 1940s by Professor Ossip K. Flechtheim, who saw the power of probabilities to predict large-scale future trends. Sometimes also known as Future Studies, the field is rigorously interdisciplinary look at the recent past and current trends and an attempt to use those observations extrapolate possible visions of the future. Futurologists attempt to read the palm of society, and see where we might end up. Predicting the future in terms of what will happen is a hard task. The number of variables involved far exceeds those limited values that we can currently estimate. However, as an increasing amount of historical information is digitized and our computational capacity grows, greater and more powerful data trends can be calculated and recorded for posterity. As an ongoing goal, futurologists try to refine a rigorous mathematics of history, searching for a form of societal truth beneath the data. Futurology, at least in ideology, looks at the past and does not

condemn it. Rather, it revels in the way society has already progressed.

Futurology, in short, tries to be a science, though it is not beyond speculative claims. It claims an ethically neutral landscape and then tries to build a roadmap of possible futures. In the process, they quantify culture and apply quasi-ethical judgments in evaluating the productivity of possible futures. As a science, it shares proverbs and philosophies with the various social sciences as well as the emerging field of Complexity Sciences.

Futurism, by extension, might be considered applied Futurology. Futurism applies normative ethics to an otherwise spotty science populated by unchecked idealist speculation and bitter pessimism.

If Futurology is the cartographer, Futurism is the explorer, marching through the branching roadmap of the future, learning which paths are easier to traverse and which are more pleasing to our sensibilities. Futurism unapologetically introduces the human factor, digesting the science and criticizing its methodology and conclusions. Borrowing pages from the philosophy of science, philosophy of technology, ethics, sociology, and social psychology, these self-selected futurists deal in speculative thought experiments, so as to evaluate contemporary society and the possible futures on the horizon.

The goal: let’s figure out what implicit assumptions Futurology holds, try to understand what the future could have in store,

ART, L TO R: “DYNAMISM OF A CYCLIST” BY UMBERTO BOCCINI, “THE CITY RISES” BY UMBERTO BOCCINI,

O PI N IO N

PALM

by Mike Schneider and work toward a future destination that’s worth the trip.

What we are doing here is not textbook academia; rather, it’s politics ahead of the curve. There is a lot of pessimism out there about the future and a lot of unbridled optimism that disintegrates like a sculpture of dust at any subversive prodding. Futurism, as a dedicated field, is a fundamentally optimistic endeavor that stresses critical inquiry into society’s current, past, and near future interpretations of the Future at large. This includes the digestion of science fiction, utopian and dystopian literature, and pop-science/technology magazines, to furnace the power plants of productive imagination.

A prime example is the Futurist discourse on transhumanism. Today, there is a movement of “transhumanists”, a biotechnical segment of futurists, who see the future as a cyborg haven of biomechanical engineering. Some are working on putting computer chips in their arms; others are slicing up their fingertips to install a sense of electromagnetism. The search for indefinite life extension thrives in countless niche communities and specialized fields.

Though the technology is often cuttingedge, these ideas are not new. Gilgamesh wanted immortality circa 1700 BCE, as did the 15th century alchemists. The use of tools to modify the human physique and psyche has driven our collective imagination and innovation for at least the duration of written history and pre-history.

Futurologists try to predict what new technologies will allow society and the in-

dividual to do. Futurists look at what those before us have done or dreamed of, what we currently do or fetishize, and what we plan or want to do. In the hodge-podge of literature and convoluted imagery, futurists cull the technologies and innovations that seem most ideal and most in-line with an overarching image of the future that we would enjoy reaching.

Very often, this means prioritizing future interests over short-term gratification.

Futurists engage in a patient philosophy that orients priorities in terms of progress and orients progress according to common cross-cultural dreams of future prospects. While such a goal is challenging and overladen with philosophical ambiguity, it nonetheless serves as an excellent casual guidebook to determining future developments and policies.

I say developments and policies because, at the end of the day, Futurism operates most effectively as a think tank to actualize the speculation that many of us privately and colloquially pursue. In this sense, Futurism is a productive venture.

For example, consider some fancy helmet of magnets that has been shown in labs to make the wearer less susceptible to frustration in the face of stress. Reading about that technology, a Futurist’s thought process might be as follows: That’s a cool article; I wonder what it’d be like if technology like this ever became mainstream. It’d be pretty awesome, like something out of The Jetsons. Yes, we’d all definitely be better off … hey, you ever notice how the family structure of The Jetsons

“IMPRESSION IN A DANCE HALL” BY JULES SCHMALZIGAUG, “THE CYCLIST” BY NATALIA GONCHAROVA

is totally locked in the 1950s heterosexist capitalist conception of the nuclear family?

Yeah — like how the father obviously favors the son and how the wife takes the husband’s wallet and goes shopping all day while he goes to work, all in the opening credits. You know what else is screwed up? That the stock-clip-art image used in that article is of a man satisfied that his purchase will make his commute easier. This technology is totally more useful in a classroom helping kids get the hang of everything. Though, to put it in public schools would require a radical reinterpretation of the way schools should be implemented…

What is happening in such a thought process? We started with a cool new feature technology, covered by a presumably wellpresented article. It felt like there wasn’t much more to contribute in the discussion.

All of a sudden, a casual analogy to the science fiction show The Jetsons deconstructs into an awareness of severe “present-day” cultural influences in an otherwise “futuristic” dream of the future. In the process of that conversation, it becomes clear that there might be better uses for the technology in the article, simply by consequence of a savvy analysis of the tools we use to talk about the future in the first place. We leave the thought at a much more productive point in the conversation—in which new understandings of the role of education are essential to effectively utilizing a new technology in its best capacity. That’s Futurism—leaving each imagination of the potential future at a more productive point than where it starts. O NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

21

RE CU LT U

media

MADNESS robert collins

22

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

CREATIVE COMMONS

RE TU UL C

misrepresentations of mental illness

E

liminating the stigma surrounding mental illness is a daunting prospect, but if the media learns to portray mental illness accurately, it could help to end the persistent pattern of misunderstanding and prejudice that affects millions of mentally ill people. In spite of its powers of dissemination, the media is still reinforcing ancient stereotypes.

Television presents obsessive case studies about deranged and violent killers while ignoring the experience of mental illness in the general public—an experience that affects one in four Americans, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

Meanwhile, soap operas exploit fictional mental disorders, and Buzzfeed offers us a “bipolar chihuahua.”

Film and premium television, however, are producing some sensitive depictions that may have the power to reverse this negative pattern. In the same way that Philadelphia revolutionized the public perception of AIDS in 1993, film and television may be opening a new era of acceptance for some forms of mental illness. In the past, film has played an active role in exorcising societal demons. But what happens when the demon is so complex and impenetrable, as mental illness is, that the stigma it carries has been a part of human society for thousands of years? How far, then, can the power of a few media depictions go?

Hollywood’s interest in mental illness goes back to the early days of psychotherapy, and of the movies themselves, but it hasn’t always taken a progressive form. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1945 film Spellbound starred Ingrid Bergman as a psychiatrist trying to unravel a tough patient, played by Gregory Peck.

Spellbound billed itself as a vehicle for demonstrating the wonders of psychotherapy, but its approach seems outlandish today; it featured an outdated pseudo-Freudian conclusion and a surrealist dream sequence designed by Salvador Dalí.

Other influential films have been red herrings in the development of awareness. The 1975 adaptation of Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest may have helped to change the practice of psychiatry and close down the traditional mental institutions, but it isn’t truly about mental illness; it’s a Beat-era parable about the struggle of the individual within a conformist system.

The film uses mental illness as a symbol for the helplessness of the individual, while ig-

noring the intrinsic value of mental illness as a subject. Beyond the abstract implications of its theme, the film caused a lasting backlash against electroconvulsive therapy—a relatively common recourse for people suffering from treatment-resistant mood disorders today—for its horrific, yet misleading role in destroying Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy.

But slowly, depictions of mental illness began to evolve. In 1980, Robert Redford’s Ordinary People was the first film to bring to a wide audience the devastating effects of suicide and depression on families, and the healing power of therapy. Ordinary People was the first popular film to attempt to portray interiority in a mentally ill character.

if the media learns to portray mental illness accurately, it could help to end the persistent pattern of misunderstanding and prejudice Despite its positive impact, Ordinary People did not put an end to misleading portrayals. Since then, depictions of mental illness in popular films and television shows have often been droll and one-dimensional.

Tony Shalhoub, for example, played a lovable obsessive-compulsive detective on Monk, which ran from 2002 to 2009. But Monk’s OCD was a gimmick; it inexplicably gave him his powers of deductive reasoning, and almost entirely defined his character. Toni Collette, in the same vein, played a person with dissociative identity disorder on United States of Tara. Tara’s condition was reduced to a plot point and a spectacle. The disorders as depicted in these shows were quirky foibles that turned the characters into oddities—freakshows, there to generate laughs and act out metaphors for the problems of normal people.

Yet this pattern of damaging, identitydetermining portrayals may finally be a thing of the past; two recent, highly popular productions have taken a much more positive approach. The Showtime series Homeland and recent film Silver Linings Playbook have produced what many have found to

be accurate, sensitive depictions of bipolar illness—a mood disorder that afflicts about four million Americans. Unlike previous portrayals, they provide an immediate window on the disorder that may be inspiring a shift in popular perceptions of mental illness.

In the tradition of Ordinary People, both productions do their best to avoid flat characterizations and address some of the real problems that many bipolar people and their families face: the vagaries of the mental health system; the reasons for resisting treatment; the difficulty of diagnosis; the fact that bipolar disorder has a genetic basis and runs in families; and the emotional cost of mania, depression, and suicide attempts. It’s a dramatic and overwhelming improvement from what we’ve seen before, and a definitive departure from the use of mental illness as a symbol or plot device, or the depiction of it as a harmless quirk. And since Silver Linings Playbook and Homeland have reached an unusually wide audience, their prospects for changing public perceptions of mental illness are as good as any. Silver Linings Playbook earned $132 million at the box office and a number of Academy Awards, and each episode of Homeland attracts about 2 million viewers at airtime.

But neither depiction is flawless, and whether these two isolated depictions can permanently buck the trend of negative portrayals will be a true test of the power of film and television. Both Silver Linings Playbook and Homeland sometimes err where the demands of narrative trump the portrayal of the illness and where the paratactic language of film precludes detail. Silver Linings Playbook may gloss over some details of treatment and overplay the role of love in ameliorating mental illness. Homeland may put too much emphasis on Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), the CIA analyst protagonist, as a “bipolar hero”—conflating mental illness with a heroic identity and incisive analytical power. At some moments in each, it’s hard to tell where the features of the illness end and the characters begin,though real mood disorders often present the same problem.

These new depictions are undoubtedly a positive development in the media’s approach to mental illness. Yet what is at stake here—a long-overdue end to the mental illness stigma—seems too critically important to leave up to the caprices of Hollywood producers. O NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

23

M US IC

RAP RENAISSANCE HOW NEW YORK IS CHANGING THE GAME

NADER SALASS

O

ver the past few years, New York City has been the hub of a promising rap renaissance. Emerging crews have collectively revived the urban sounds of the 90s, fused party rap with Houston lean music, and introduced a new aesthetic of druggy mysticism. Joey Bada$$’ Brooklyn-based Pro Era and A$AP Rocky’s Harlem-based A$AP Mob have helped move rap away from the smothering clutches of the late Dirty South movement and into a new age of creativity. Between 2006 and 2008, an attempt to revive classical Southern rap oversaturated and quickly stagnated the genre into a cascade of mindless dance songs.

Thankfully, we’ve forgotten that Flo-Rida’s “Low” and T.I.’s “Whatever You Like” were the two most popular rap songs in 2008. Instead of developing personalities and lyricism, rappers mechanically spewed out lyrics and sounds that revolved around mindless 24

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

notions of club scenes. Today, however, 2008 rap just seems like a distant hangover. The New York renaissance has helped rap regain its charm, honesty, and unpredictability – of course with the help of other movements such as, California’s Odd Future and Kendrick Lamar’s Black Hippy. Project after project, New York has pioneered new competitive sounds, developed more widely relatable lyrics, and set up a context of continual improvement for fans.

Rap finally seems to have regained its focus on developing an honest narrative of each rapper’s true characters. In both Pro Era’s PEEP: The aPROcalypse and Joey Bada$$’ astonishing mix tapes, 1999 and Summer Knights, you can lyrically and sonically feel the laid-back and honest personalities that make up the Pro Era crew.

These kids, mostly students from Brooklyn’s Edward R. Murrow High School, give you a candid picture of their lives and make you ART BY ROBERT COLLINS

M IC US

feel like they’re rapping for themselves and no one else. While Southern rap cultivated an ambience of dishonesty and conformity, these New York rappers have brought honesty to the forefront of hip-hop. Flushing, Queens native Action Bronson has also recovered sincerity in the genre—demonstrating his uniquely appealing character as a wise guy, overseas-traveller, luxury chef, and occasional rapper. Bronson’s raps and promotional videos entertain his fans with authentic and ironically lavish images of his lifestyle. Artists like Pro Era and Bronson are clearly seeking to gain trust from their listeners, something that late Southern rap has long neglected. As New York MCs approach their music as a project of baring their sincere selves, they have restored life to rap and have given the genre a genuine charisma absent in late Southern rap.

More than approaching their projects with an attitude of integrity, New York rappers are developing their projects comprehensively. For example, creating new fashion trends, and are channeling a range of musical influences in unprecedented ways.

A$AP Mob, for example, has meticulously worked to create visual trends that combine messy urban style with high fashion.

The fashion image that A$AP Rocky and his team have developed, for example, guides much of their lyricism—although sometimes to his disadvantage. More than crafting appealing imagery and fashion trends, A$AP Mob has drawn from various musical influences to craft a progressive sound, which mixes together familiar New York urban standards with the Houston screw influences—which late Southern rap coincidentally misapplied to their vain club music. While late Southern rap was no more than a slew of the same predictable sounds, crews such as A$AP Mob have inspired a comprehensive creativity in both music and fashion.

The vision of the A$AP Mob seems to have launched a thirst for competitive innovation amongst other rap groups in the New York area. Earlier this year, a lesserknown group, The Underachievers, demonstrated unexpectedly comprehensive sounds on their popular mix tape Indigoism. The tape was original in sound and lyricism, mixing organic bluesy samples with refined trap drums under a vivid and

aesthetic of supernatural acid rap. Indigoism delivered a sound and visual appeal only possible with an organic blend of widespread musical influences. This summer, another Brooklyn-based group, Flatbush Zombies released a conceptually similar mix tape entitled, D.R.U.G.S—which stands for Death and Reincarnation Under God’s Supervision. On the tape, producer and rapper, Erick Arc Elliot combines a unique soundscape of spacey jingles and dark bangers. Lyrically, the Zombies add original elements of horror and fiendish villainy to the druggy mysticism we found on projects like The Underachievers’ Indigoism. Apart from Erick Arc’s impressive production, Meechy Darko’s unpredictable flow and gruff intonations give D.R.U.G.S an original, engaging, and unexpected

NEW YORK RAPPERS HAVE BROUGHT HONESTY TO THE FOREFRONT OF HIP-HOP edge. The Underachievers and the Flatbush Zombies frequently collaborate under the Beast Coast umbrella. However, instead of conforming to a repetitive and homogenized style, these groups seem to motivate each other to develop lyrical, musical, and aesthetic range. While late Southern rappers approached their music with an attitude of conformity, Beast Coast, A$AP Mob, Pro Era, and Action Bronson, and other New York MCs compete with each other to build and develop originality in both their music and visuals.

Although several New York groups have given rap a new creativity and energy, as of late, the momentum seems to have been slowing down. Maybe it’s just that fans have been spoiled with a wave of originality, but many of these artists’ recent projects—with the exception of Action Bronson’s Blue Chips 2, Joey Bada$$’s Summer Knights, and A$AP Ferg’s hit singles “Shabba” and “Work (Remix)”—

have been somewhat underwhelming. The Flatbush Zombies’ second mix tape, Better Off Dead, is among the highly anticipated Beast Coast projects that ended up veering into disappointment. Better Off Dead is less original in its production, conceptually disorganized, and is littered with clichés. On D.R.U.G.S, Meechy Darko, for example, referred to how his crew was blowing up the rap scene with originality, he cleverly mixed the dead Zombie aesthetic with the familiar notions of hip hop’s death, rapping, “Hip-hop dead, that’s cause we here.” On Better Off Dead, although he tries to deliver the same message, he ends up coming off cheap and irritating: “Zombies blowing up like the Boston marathon, Boom/ War too soon, opposite of late bloom.” Much like on The Underachievers’ second project, the Zombies seem to be prematurely taking their influence on hip hop too seriously on this album. Instead of channeling a competitive attitude, The Underachievers and the Zombies ended up both losing their originality in sound and reducing their previously appealing drugmagic aesthetic into a conceited gimmick.

These recent upsets are not cause for too much concern or anxious notions of an end to the New York City rap renaissance. However, a declining competitive attitude coupled with premature self-confidence suggests a questionable future for some of these previously groundbreaking artists. Despite this, it seems that new and talented rappers are feeding off the fresh sounds that the likes of Flatbush Zombies and The Underachievers have created and are now springing up across the five boroughs. Even if the previously groundbreaking momentum is slowing down, the renaissance in New York is nevertheless continuing to inspire a wave of unpredictable experimentation that late Southern rap never thought to pursue. New York has done more than simply channel nostalgic sounds of the 90s, revive Houston screw music in a more original way than did late Southern rap, and cultivate progressive and memorable visuals. By abandoning the dishonest attitude of late Southern rappers, the new wave of rappers has revived rap as a charismatic genre genuinely seeking to explore, complicate, and reflect the complications of the human experience. O NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

25

CA O M FF PU S

RIBELLE: four-star fever dream

By Anika Ades

PHOTOS BY ANIKA ADES AND WWW.BUNNYANDPORKBELLY.COM

By Anika Ades

26

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

S FF U O MP A C

T

he Boston Globe’s notoriously picky restaurant reviewer, Devra First, recently bestowed her first “Extraordinary” four-star review in over two years to the chefs at Ribelle in Brookline. Serving Italian cuisine— in the loosest sense of the term—chef/ and owner Tim Maslow has a quilt of experiences that inform his cooking.

At only 29 years old, Maslow has run the kitchen in a globally-recognized restaurant, revamped his father’s 25-year-old lunch joint, and opened his own restaurant. Although he was influenced by his Italian background, and his a father owned a sandwich shop in Watertown, Maslow honed his cooking chops at the momofuku ssäm bar, a luxe Japanese restaurant in Manhattan where Maslow quickly climbed through the kitchen ranks to Chef de Cuisine.

The minimalist delicacy of Japanese flavors and the robust sauces and earthiness of Italian cuisine seem opposite, yet Maslow proves they are complimentary. The influences of his two culinary backgrounds are evident in everything from the décor to the cocktail menu. The sculptural, metallic light fixtures illuminate a single, rough-hewn wooden table that extends the entire length of the restaurant, with separate parties squeezed together like one boisterous Italian family. The wine, beer, and cocktail menus are impressive but unpretentious; wines by the glass are numbered under “reds,” “pinks,” and “whites,” rather than by year or vineyard.

The cocktails are reason enough to visit Ribelle. The ingredients in the varied potions would satisfy even the pickiest connoisseur, with many house-made syrups, tonics, bitters, and juices. The bartender explained that one whisky-based drink, flavored with Earl Grey Tea and lemon, was named for the nostalgic smells associated with grandfathers, and another

gin-based one with fermented beet juice and hops would be best for one who likes to drink beer but is looking for something with more kick. “Progress and Needs” layers dark spiced rums over ginger beer and lemon, for a delicious Dark and Stormy with a twist. (The waitress regretfully informed us that the homemade smallbatch ginger beer made with fresh shaved ginger had already been used up for the week). By the time our waitress had walked us through the menus and the many small plates of food began arriving, the anticipation from watching delicately-plated, colorful dishes reach our neighbors had reached a breaking point.

The minimalist delicacy of Japanese flavors and the robust sauces and earthiness of Italian cuisine seem opposite, yet Maslow proves they are complimentary.

While kale salads are now increasingly passé, Maslow’s twist on the trend is roasted with savory oyster crema and topped with fried quinoa.

Listed under “vegetables” on the unconventionally organized menu (the other minimalist categories were “seafood,” “bread + grains,” and “meat”), the densely flavorful oyster sauce and the chewiness of the greens perfectly mimics a seafood dish.

Many of the dishes are sparse and flavor-dense, but the truffle egg toast is straight comfort food. Presented with a jaunty semolina bread hat and a heavy topping of melted cheese and shishito peppers, the sofresh-it-was-orange yolk spills out from its concealed nest with one swift knife slice. This plate embodies

exactly Maslow’s unification of Japanese deliberateness and simplicity with the Italian emphasis on quality ingredients.

The favorite dish of the bunch, with more layered surprises, is the duck liver mousse listed under the “meat” section, though deserving of its own elevated category above the standard castes of food. The mousse itself is rich and light, and embedded with various jewel-toned berries and enormous fresh capers. Rather than being served on the expected toasted bread, perfectly crunchy homemade breadsticks draped over the mousse make this luxurious dish casual and fun. The je ne sais quoi of the plate is revealed when a bottom layer of warm chamomile-scented honey sauce spills forth, creating the perfect blend of savory and sweet.

Though there are many other excellent dishes—tripe and gnocchi in tomato sauce, or shrimp and citrus wedges over rye bigoli—the grand finale is the most creative and memorable: olive oil ice cream with a darkchocolate shell. Between the salty bite of the olive oil and the creamy sweetness of the ice cream, this is one of those pairings that should have emerged years ago. This is the new pinnacle of the salty-sweet dessert idealism. The chocolate shell adds a childish and whimsical topping that reminds me of my favorite hometown soft-serve stand.

A great meal can be anything from a simple barbecue in great company to a Michelin-starred black tie affair, but the laid-back atmosphere and imaginative creations at Ribelle guarantee an unforgettable and inevitably fun experience. Though the price tags on the biggest dishes can be restrictive, there are great dishes at easy price points for lowly students as well. The Globe hit the nail on the head with those four stars. O

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER

27

AS EX TR

POLICE BLOTTER

By Aaron Langerman and Moira Lavelle

Donkey Kong

Halloween Pt. I

Halloween Pt. II

TUPD received a call from Medford police that two Tufts students were throwing barrels onto the train tracks near Boston Ave. As the police approached the students, the one throwing the barrels fled the scene. The other student was caught dead in his tracks.

He proceeded to sell out his roommate (the absent barrel thrower) and took the police back to their home.

Luckily for the perpetrator, he evaded both law enforcement and his doublecrossing roommate because he had yet to return home. Since none of the barrels successfully landed on the tracks, TUPD left.

TUPD officers saw two males walking by the dumpsters behind Cabot Center. The suspects had a backpack with two pumpkins in it. Upon questioning, the males admitted that they planned to climb on top of the building and surreptitiously place the pumpkins there. Shortly thereafter, TUPD found five more students climbing down the Barnum fire escape. In an attempt to keep their mission covert, they were dressed in all black. However, they still had pumpkins in hand. Knowing their scheming intent, TUPD simply sent them on their way. Though TUPD confiscated many pumpkins that night, the pumpkin placers ultimately had the last laugh. Pumpkins were found on tusks of Jumbos around campus, various roofs, and the head of the infamous ostrich.

TUPD officers reported that there was no unusual activity on campus. In past years, officers have dealt with Batman passed out in the Campus Center, students climbing the smokestack, and other Halloween shenanigans.

But this year, true to fashion, nothing happened at Tufts. Literally nothing.

Come on, Tufts.

Oct. 24, 1:50 am

Oct. 30, 10:30 pm

Oct. 31, 1:00 am

28

TUFTS OBSERVER

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

OCTOBER 7, 2013

TUFTS OBSERVER 31 ethan chan

O

TUFTS OBSERVER SINCE 1895

www.tuftsobserver.org observer@tufts.edu @tuftsobserver

ple a se recycle