Playwright, director, essayist. Currently working toward a PhD in Drama, Theatre, and Performance Studies at the University of Toronto.

Correspondent II

  • Lurker
  • Pssst
  • Sharp-Eyed Citizen
  • ?
  • Articles
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Ext. Comments
  • Processed
  • Revisions
  • Topics
  • Topics Taken
  • Notes
  • Topics Proc.
  • Topics Rev.
  • Points
  • Rank
  • Score

    Latest Articles

    Latest Topics


    How "Wakanda" Became a Slur

    Those who watched Obama’s Nelson Mandela Lecture (17/07/18) on YouTube may have noticed the added dimension of an adjacent comment section scrolling in real-time alongside the event — the medium being the message, and all that rot. One thing that I could not help noticing among the barrage of nonsense assaulting my peripheral vision was the frequency of comments saying something to the effect of "Wakanada forever," "Is this Wakanda?," or even just the single word, "WAKANDA." Evidently, the mere presence of an African setting is enough to be immediately equated with Black Panther’s residual impact on the popular imagination’s impression of the entire continent.

    Though it may be difficult to discern whether this is the result of true malice or simple ignorance, there is certainly something to be said about the co-opting of the fictional nation to become a vehicle for such regressive discourse. Given that Black Panther has been unilaterally received as a moment of progress for African American filmmaking and Black culture in general, attention must also be given the unfortunate consequences of its omnipresence, particularly as it has been received by white (and especially conservative) audiences throughout the West.

    This article should examine the subtle process by which the film’s iconography has acquired these less-than-favourable connotations, and what that may mean for its continued existence in this highly fractured media landscape. Does this fallout in any way negate the film’s thematic emphases on the legacy of colonialism and globalization vs. isolationism? In a real-world political climate wherein an American president refers to Africa as being comprised of "shit-hole countries," does the mass exposure received by a fictional Afro-Futurist utopia serve as a genuine antidote to these misconceptions? Where is the line between empowerment and sophistry? What impact might this cross-pollination between popular culture and current politics have on the advancement of the latter, as Obama’s lecture was undeniably meant to represent?

    • An interesting topic. I loved Black Panther, but when a friend who I'd recommended it to watched it, she said it "wasn't that great". I had to explain what the film meant for the whole culture and industry; using people of colour in the cast, traditional names for those people's characters, a soundtrack written and produced by black artists that put songs from a different genre on the top charts. Perhaps it is just ignorance, or perhaps the people commenting "Wakanda forever" simply don't understand why this culture association can be seen as offensive. It's a tough question, but I'm sure you're not the only one to notice these comments so maybe there's some research out there you could try to find to help make your point? – Gemma Ferguson 6 years ago

    The Linguistics of "Wumbology"

    Famously coined by Patrick Star (and, by extension, teleplay authors Jay Lender, Sam Henderson, and Merriwether Williams) in S03E05a of Spongebob SquarePants, the term "wumbo" has since become a fixture of the pop culture lexicon and fuel for countless internet memes. It is implicitly defined through its usage as being an adjective (as the opposite of "mini"), but subsequent explanation in the episode assigns it the qualities of a verb ("I wumbo. You wumbo. He/she/me wumbo."), and culminating in the academic discipline of "wumbology" (the study of wumbo, which is supposedly introduced in first grade curricula) thus indicating a noun form in order for it to be studied. Though obviously conceived as a simple joke — aimed at highlighting Patrick’s well-documented stupidity — there is a lot to unpack with regards to this seemingly nonsensical neologism.

    Conduct a linguistic analysis of "wumbo" and its variant forms, using only the self-contained snippets of dialogue within the episode as a guide. Does it defy our preconceived understandings of linguistic morphology, or can a series of grammatical rules be devised to account for its inherently contradictory nature? If society were committed to accepting the term’s validity, what would be the parameters of usage under which it would enter our active vocabulary?

    [Note: For the best quality article, it is highly recommended that this topic be taken up by someone with a background in, or at least a sufficiently deep knowledge of, linguistics.]

    • SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL FOR YOUR PERUSAL: The original clip (; Urban Dictionary entries for Wumbo ( and Wumbology (; Uncyclopedia page for Wumbo (; an entire fandom-powered Wiki devoted to Wumbology (; Know Your Meme page on Wumbo (; thread to determine whether or not “Wumbology is a valid science” (; Quora question thread in which user asks “Where can I study Wumbology?” (; fan-made website for the University of Wumbology ( – ProtoCanon 7 years ago
    • While these noncanonical testaments to fans’ devotion to a gag make for fun reading (especially when you have a deadline for a thesis chapter rapidly approaching), I encourage the prospective author to take them with a grain of salt and refrain from deviating from the diegetically provided grammatical criteria as outlined by Patrick. For example, many of these extratextual statements define wumbology as “the study of ALL THINGS wumbo,” which is grammatically contrary to Patrick’s “the study of wumbo.” It may seem negligible, but the addition of “all things” negates the necessity of a noun form, since it instead retains an adjectival connotation as a means of describing certain “things” without the implication of wumbo as an observable autonomous entity which may be studied (i.e. a noun). For this analysis to assert any authority, it must resign itself to the rules established by the term’s progenitor. Furthermore, the Uncyclopedia page makes up a lot of material without any basis in the episode for the sake of humour. This should not be trusted as an authoritative source of information, since it allows its satire on the form of web-based encyclopedic resources take precedence over its utility as one such resource. This leads me to my final point: avoid compromising the integrity of this inquiry for the sake of satire. Obviously the question itself is absurd -- since wumbo is a silly word by its very design, coined by a fictional anthropomorphic starfish in a children’s cartoon -- but that absurdity does not necessitate a default invalidation of the central premise. For those interested in linguistics, this may prove to be a genuine case study for testing the fallibility and limitations of the rules which govern human communication. And, even for those who simply see this as a joke, there are few things funnier than treating something fundamentally frivolous with the most earnest sincerity and analytical vigour. – ProtoCanon 7 years ago

    The School of Life's Philosophical War on Trump

    Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, the London-based School of Life’s prolific YouTube channel (founded by popular philosopher, Alain de Botton, in 2008) released a video titled "Why Socrates Hated Democracy," outlining how the founder of Western philosophy opposed the idea of putting too much political power in the hands of the unqualified masses. On inauguration day, they released "Why Hegel knew there would be days like these," reminding their viewership of the dialectical nature of history, thereby assuring that this current dark chapter is not the beginning of the apocalypse, but rather a necessary antithesis on the way to a balanced synthesis. A week later came "Thoreau and Civil Disobedience," recounting the all-too-familiar horrors of the Polk administration to highlight the democratic necessity of resistance to morally dubious political policy.

    Discuss how this unofficial trilogy of videos (as well as any relevant inclusions that may follow, presumably over the next four years) resists the current state of American demagoguery. How do they contribute to the over-saturated pool of political discourse? Are they effective at breaking through the noise and conveying their messages? How has the [not-so-]subtle refraining from using Trump’s name and face (aside from the occasional comic interlude video, such as "What America is Getting for Christmas," which is not treated with the same degree of seriousness as the others) aided in the potency of their rhetoric? In the climate of anti-intellectualism that many commentators have noted as being central to alt-right ideology, does the invocation of history’s greatest thinkers do anything more than preaching to the choir, without making any significant impact in those in need of conversion? Can their presence on YouTube allow them more potential for change than what is available in old media? Does The School’s firm lack of political neutrality in these videos impact the way we view the rest of their catalogue, most of which being entirely apolitical in nature?

    • Interesting de Botton's agreement with Socrates, Hegel, and Thoreau appear after the election... That's as disingenuous as Trump claiming, before he won, that the election was rigged, only to be silent on the issue afterwards. Also, de Botton's contradiction: democracy is bad because it can elect a Trump, but good because it can oppose a Trump. This is like saying Trump's alleged philandering is bad but Bill's was okay. Last, Trump seems less a Polk (warmongering sectarian) than a Jackson (status quo-fighting populist). The judge barring the immigrant travel ban seems to be Trump's first Nicholas Biddle. Great topic, btw. Objectivity has been AWOL since Nixon, may he rest in piss. – Tigey 7 years ago

    The Little World of Liz Climo: The Aesthetics of Adorableness

    Discuss the career and works of Simpsons-animator, children’s author, and web-comic artist, Liz Climo ((link) . What factors may have led to her success? What is it about her simple, one to two panel comics that makes them so cute and heartwarming? Are there aesthetic standards within the often-neglected form of one/few-panel comics by which her work may be critically evaluated? Where is her place within the long tradition of this form, among artists such as Hank Ketcham, Bil Keane, Gary Larson, Dan Piraro, and countless others? In what ways has her online presence contributed to her work and distribution, as well as the contemporary cultural understanding that comics in the 21st century can exist in spaces beyond the "funny papers"?


      Dothraki Tribalism and the Ubermensch

      "It is the right of the strong to take from the weak." (Martin, 758)

      The sociopolitical structure of the Dothraki people is governed by the strong, with tribal communities gravitating around warriors who have proven their greatness in battle. This is seen most evidently when Khal Drogo’s khalasar is disbanded as soon as his strength begins to falter, prompting several of his strongest subordinates to name themselves new Khals to form new khalasars with whoever will follow. This ideology is the reason why none of the Dothraki had any respect for Viserys, who had no true strength of his own, but felt entitled to the Iron Throne by being a descendant of the old dynasty. Though the Targaryen reign was ushered in by the brute strength of Aegon the Conqueror and his dragons (a method of asserting one’s right to rule much in line with this Dothraki system), the establishment of a monarchy after the victory changed the game (of thrones).
      Discuss the differences between these two methods of governance. Which one might prove to be more effective for selecting leaders (both in Westeros and in the real world)? How does the Dothraki reverence for individuals with power reflect the Nietzschean view of the ubermensch? How might it mirror the real-life rises to power of autocratic leaders from Julius Caesar, to Napoleon Bonaparte, to Fidel Castro? In what ways might this need to respect the ruler illustrate a sort of precursor to our modern democracy?

      • This is a fascinating topic! An I think I can closely linked the prevalent political metanarratives regarding the conceptualization of democracy in our post-colonial world. However, I don't think that this sociopolitical structure illustrates a previous system. Instead, I think the khalasar was Martin's way of decrying the weakness a impotence (despite the claims of universality) of the broken Western political system. Between Trump and Khal Drogo, i'll take Drogo any day. – AnaMRuiz 8 years ago
      • Great topic! I think it's important to look at how monarchy has failed repeatedly in Game of Thrones. Even Robert Baratheon used Dothraki methods of taking what was his, he just led a rebellion, stormed in and sat down. Although Baratheon is related to Targaryen it was a non-linear ascension. You'd think people would learn to instill a democracy but once in power prideful houses want to do everything in their power to keep the reign for their descendants no matter how unfit they may be... It's all very "history repeats itself." – Slaidey 8 years ago

      Polyvocality in Literature

      Trace the history and development of polyvocality (a work having multiple narrators, or following varied narrative voices and perspectives from different characters) as a literary form. From its humble beginnings in the canonisation of the Gospels – combining four distinct accounts of Jesus’ ministry and death by separate authors into one collected volume of scriptural authority – to the epistolary style of Samuel Richardson and Bram Stoker, all the way to Modern novels by William Faulkner, Lawrence Durrell, and George RR Martin. How have methods of polyvocal narration developed over time? What social and aesthetic factors may have given it more prominence at certain historical periods? How have these authors’ choices to present their stories from multiple perspectives been reactionary to the long tradition of single narrators, whether omniscient 3rd person or limited 1st person? How is this reflected in contemporary literary styles and trends?

      • Are you considering fiction, non-fiction, or both? If including non-fiction, it might be enlightening to investigate whether polyvocality increases or decreases the accuracy of eyewitness accounts of events, such as those in the four Gospels. – Tigey 8 years ago
      • Very ambitious. Also, necessary mention: The Canterbury Tales. – TKing 8 years ago
      • This sounds like a topic that can really be developed and analyzed. The only issue I have here is the word "polyvocality.". Are there other words that can express your idea such as multiple narrators in postmodern literature? I am not sure polyvocality is the way to go but am at a loss to give a concrete suggestion. Perhaps someone on the forum could help. – Munjeera 8 years ago
      • Tigey: Though I mainly had fiction in mind, there's certainly room for nonfiction as well. It's certainly debatable which category the Gospels belong to (I'd personally categorise them as "Historical Fiction," but am aware of how contentious such claims can be). If whoever writes this topic wishes to follow that thread further, I'd highly recommending reading The Rise and Fall of the Bible by Timothy Beal; he discusses the polyvocality of the Bible at great length, combating the contemporary notion of its univocality as a "magic eight-ball" with all the answers to life's mysteries. TKing: Good addition, that definitely slipped my mind. In all honesty, I've never been a big Chaucer fan myself, but it belongs on this list nevertheless. I'm sure there are countless other texts that I failed to mention, and it's up to whoever decides to write this topic to do their research to fill in the blanks. Munjeera: You're probably correct that there may be a better word for it, but "polyvocality" was the most suitable term that I was able to think of, and often does appear in literary (and biblical) studies. If you think of a better option, don't hesitate to come back here and share it. – ProtoCanon 8 years ago
      • Another important aspect to mention is free-indirect discourse, when discussing this topic. – danielle577 8 years ago
      • A famous example of polyvocality is Virginia Woolf's The Waves, due to the excessive use of polyvocality and the great difficulty the reader has in deciphering, at multiple parts in the novel, just in fact which character is speaking. She is known for her streams of consciousness writing, and the novel is so intricately woven that multiple streams of consciousness begin to become embedded--which can be infuriating for some readers, while utterly beautiful for others. I want to write this topic!!! – danielle577 8 years ago
      • If you choose to include modern literature, Jodi Picoult is a good example of this, as are Kathryn Stockett and Amy Tan. – Stephanie M. 7 years ago
      • May I suggest as an alternative to polyvocality: "Transversal Literature" – L:Freire 5 years ago

      Homoerotic Subtext and the Ben-Hur Remake

      Regardless of one’s personal opinions of film remakes, there’s something rather culturally significant about making a new Ben-Hur in 2016. Since the release of the 1995 documentary, The Celluloid Closet, it has become well-known that Gore Vidal went into writing the screenplay for the 1959 film with the idea that Ben-Hur and Messala were former lovers ((link) which drove much of the subtextual conflict of the story. Though the audience of the day, via their substantially heteronormative attitudes and expectations, was predominantly unable to detect this secret inclusion, today it is viewed as a successful attempt at LGBT representation in the early days of film history.

      Fast forward 57 years, to a time when society has progressed enough that homosexuality is no longer the social taboo that it once was and is not at all prohibited from cinematic representation. To remake a film like Ben-Hur at this time presents a world of possibilities, namely that the filmmakers are now able to present the homoerotic tension between these characters more explicitly and overtly than was allowed in 1959. However, based on the two trailers [the film has not yet been released at the time of my writing this], there appears to have been a conscious creative choice to make Ben-Hur and Messala adoptive brothers in this new rendering of the story. One might be inclined to speculate that this decision was made to exorcise the spirit of the story’s homoerotic past, thereby using "brotherly love" in lieu of "ambiguously gay duo" to unburden their hard-core action movie with something that they believe to have "non-masculine" qualities.

      Discuss the differences between the two films in this respect. How does it reflect views toward LGBT characters in the film industry, particularly in the action genre? What might it say about the shifting standards for what can be deemed as acceptable and unacceptable film content? Clearly something is a little socially retrograde if a movie in 1959 is able to do a better job of including gay characters than its 2016 counterpart. Might the remake’s heightened religious emphasis have something to do with this? What other examples of recent films might exemplify this phenomenon? Furthermore, what value is there to remake certain films if not to better express aspects that can receive new meaning in our contemporary context?

      • If there's space in this discussion, I'd like to see some exploration of the encoded homoeroticism of the "sword and sandal" genre generally, beyond the politics of explicit representation. This massive scale celebration of exposed male flesh and sweat, associated with Greek homoerotic pederasty, seems a curious counterpoint to the social conservatism of the 1950s, and yet it existed at the very core of the mainstream. – TKing 8 years ago

      Jerry Seinfeld's Crusade Against PC Culture

      For the past while, Jerry Seinfeld has become quite vocal about his disdain for political correctness in comedy. Independent of one’s personal stance on this highly-contested issue, their is something strange about Seinfeld making himself a spokesman for this somewhat adversarial position, considering how tame his comedy has historically been in that respect. Discuss the nature of Seinfeld’s seemingly unlikely position, what factors may have led him to it, and what influence he has had in the debate.

      • Great topic. Seinfeld was a popular in the 90s. Could be he is finding a generation gap: Boomers vs Millennials? I found his conversations with Jon Stewart interesting because Seinfeld has in the past always eschewed political satire and Jon Stewart of course is so different. Both comedians though. He did make a career though of portraying a shallow superficial character on TV so it is possible that such a role rooted in his real life persona should not come as a real surprise. Remember the 90s were a time of economic prosperity and so perhaps the inequities of today and post 9/11 tone has changed our global and national discourse. We live in different times and I think comedy has veered toward political satire given the nature of the material present in today presidential race. I am sure Seinfeld's kids will get him up to day though. Kids have that effect on aging parents. – Munjeera 8 years ago
      • It's definitely a matter of shifting standards; watching Seinfeld reruns, a lot of the jokes seem mean and target already disenfranchised groups. Things that were funny or even just acceptable socially 20 years ago don't always hold up today, so I think he's finding out how much of his material was catered to his 90s/early 2000s audience. – chrischan 8 years ago
      • I think an interesting thing to consider with Seinfeld's stance on political correctness is the difference in media representation when he was rising to fame as a stand-up comedian and his subsequent TV show. Even in the 90's, there wasn't a popular voice for many minority groups in the mainstream media to speak up for or against the status quo, as compared to today where there are many prominent figures, as well as social media, whom make their feeling known. Does Seinfeld have a point in people getting softer or have those people always been around, but without a voice. – Dominique Kollie 8 years ago
      • Seinfeld was popular amongst people who felt there should be some backlash against the politically correct movement. Seinfeld has his philosophy about comedy and what he is committed to as a comedian. He avoids politics, swearing and personally ascribes to a colorblind attitude. If you watch Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee with Jerry and Chris Rock, Jerry and Trevor Noah and Jerry and President Obama, you will see how committed he is to eschewing any political hot topics. Social justice and equity are not his thing and he makes that clear. I mean it is up to him how he does his job. You can't argue with success. I personally never really liked Seinfeld as I enjoy political satire and parody. The show was proud to celebrate the inconsequential. – Munjeera 8 years ago
      • To build off of what chrischan said, my understanding of his backlash was that it stemmed from college students not laughing at a joke he made at the expense of the LGBTQ+ community. Meanwhile, we have comedians like Sarah Silverman and Amy Schumer (very 'edgy' comedians) stating that, while they don't regret jokes they made in the past, there are certain culturally insensitive jokes that they would not make today. I find this topic so interesting in virtue of this split: the issue to me doesn't seem to be about PC culture stifling free speech, but rather it involves that the creator of a joke think about what they say from multiple perspectives. Seinfeld, in contrast to Schumer and Silverman, may represent that divide in terms of a more inclusive culture for an historically pretty conservative field of creative expression. – Derek 8 years ago
      • Spineless Seinfeld is too wimpy to have a crusade. Him criticizing PC culture is like a paraplegic punching a quadriplegic: the weaker attacking the weakest, How can he, a guy in a show one could easily watch with a pious grandmama - rage against PC culture? "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia?" Now that's a challenge to PC culture. – Tigey 8 years ago
      • I was always a fan of the show Seinfeld, as that was part of my generation, well, the tail-end of it. Personally, in my belief, I think Seinfeld is doing all of this as a talking point, or publicity stunt to stage some form of comeback. He's always been relatively private or on the quiet side, so I've laughed all this talk off, take it all in stride as another means of acting, and I'm just waiting for his announcement or punch-line that will clear up what this all means. – danielle577 8 years ago
      • I have heard Seinfeld speak on this topic of equity and PC and Seinfeld believes that America is a meritocracy. In the past his view was you work hard, you get ahead if you are good enough to be better than everyone else. Clearly that worked for him. But since then, Seinfeld has become a parent, which can radically alter most people. Perhaps in the past Seinfeld did not feel that being PC was a positive aspect but now he is a parent. I don't know what Seinfeld's religious beliefs are, as mentioned he is private. Good for him on the privacy issue but as a parent I hope he recognizes that there is a lot of anti-Semitism still in the world today, which sickens me. Whenever I hear it, I always speak up ... strongly. I hope despite his public persona of focusing on trivial issues, he supports his kids over dealing with prejudices. There are still a lot of reprehensible stereotypes about many groups and all of us have to rethink our ideas when we encounter hatred, especially irrational hatred and prejudice directed at our children. This can help make a person stronger. No matter how weak someone is, moms and dads have a killer instinct to defend their kids. Even though I didn't really like the show, I respect Seinfeld because he had integrity to quit while he was doing immensely successfully in his field. I believe he will carry that same integrity on to his parenting. – Munjeera 8 years ago
      • From Seinfeld, I don't expect Lenny Bruce's "comedy" - which challenged polite, suburban, white-flight, Northern racism - nor do I expect anyone to be as funny as Richard Pryor. I expect from Seinfeld, to quote Bob Dylan, to "do what's necessary and then repent"; it's generally what we all do to save our own skins. I think Danielle nailed it: it's a posture; I think Munjeera nailed it: parenthood is a game changer; but I think I nailed it too: he's just not compelling enough to garner my attention. Bob Dylan belches and I take notes; Seinfeld speaks and I yawn – Tigey 8 years ago

      Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

      Latest Comments


      Any comment on the reveal in The Last Jedi?

      Star Wars: Who is Rey (And Why Do We Care)?

      Nice to see this published; it really came along.

      The Brutal Presentation of Modern Society in The Play 'Shopping and F***ing'

      This might just be one of the best articles I’ve read on this site to date. Thorough knowledge of the subject matter, demonstrative of strong critical thinking, and great skill in writing and rhetoric. A worthy analysis of a fantastic show. You’ve made me want to go re-watch it right now (not that I really needed the excuse). Well done.

      Freaks and Geeks: One Season, 17 Years of Cultural Influence

      I don’t ordinarily comment on these articles with such editorial vigor, but — given the ironic nature of this particular article — it felt morally wrong for me to let it pass by unscrutinized:

      – “The new Yorker”: Capitalize the “N”
      – “Lately, a common practice that has been largely prevalent among all of these platforms are errors.”: Errors are not a “common practice” (I think you meant to say “common occurrence”). “Practice” implies intentionality.
      – “Hence, the question have arisen which asks, ‘where did all the editors go?’”: Replace “have” with “has” since the question is not plural. Also, you don’t really need the “which asks.” It just makes the sentence read more awkwardly than necessary.
      – “Newspaper or magazine organizations are cutting down costs to let of the editorial staff.”: Did you meant “to let [go] of”? That’s the only guess I have which could make this sentence make any sense.
      – “Therefore, this further makes missing of errors or committing the same errors a natural phenomenon.”: Misuse of the term “natural phenomenon.” Monarch butterfly migration is a natural phenomenon; moss growing on trees and rocks is a natural phenomenon. What you’re describing can better be referred to as a “regular occurrence.”
      – The first paragraph after your bolded subheading begins with two nonsensical statements.
      – Where is the evidence (in form of citations and/or statistics) to support your claims? I’m not saying that you’re necessarily wrong, but I’m also not going to take your word for it when there’s no indication that you’ve done any research on the subject on which you’re now presenting yourself to be an authority.
      – “Most of the editors of the current generation belong to that generation of the journalists who are raised in the media that has emerged in the 90s.”: Cut out the “the” before “journalists”; replace “who are” with “who were”; cut the “has” before “emerged”; put either an apostrophe or “19” before “90s.”
      – “80 percent of editors”: Citation please. 1) That statistic feels unlikely, and 2) even if it didn’t, you word is not enough.
      – “This lacks professional training”: WHAT exactly “lacks professional training”? Your seemingly made up statistic about 80% of journalists working with 1990s media and technology? What does one thing have to do with the other?
      – “The greater amount of popularity that has been received by audio-visual mediums are reasons that online mediums are facing a shrink in the revenue.”: Couple things: 1) “Popularity” in an intangible abstract concept, making it difficult to quantify in terms of “amount.” Use real statistical measures. 2) Are “online mediums” NOT forms of “audio-visual” media? And, if not, what exactly are you suggesting? That the internet is losing out to TV news? I don’t need to see a study to know that’s probably wrong. 3) Perhaps the confusion is a result of the awkward phrasing — i.e. something that an editor would notice and fix.
      – “This could be one of the factors”: So much of your argument is predicated on cutbacks leading to laid off editors leading to improperly edited content (which you repeat more times than necessary to convey such a simple point btw). That being the case, is it that “this COULD be one of the factors”? I don’t blame you for not wanting to make authoritative claims — especially considering what little, if any, research you’ve done — but then why even bother trying to diagnose the problem if your not going to commit to your conclusions. This is an opinion piece at best, and a rather weak one at that.
      – “The traditional quote of Marshall McLuhan, ‘the medium is the message’ is certainly becoming true.”: Do YOU understand the point that you’re trying to make here? Because I certainly don’t (and I’ve read McLuhan). Your just parroting the point that Munjeera made in the Helpful Notes of the original topic — you seem to have done a lot of copy and pasting from there when composing this article — but your lack of context and understanding has made her point lose all its meaning.
      – “One of the major reasons that can be cited as a problem is the modern times.”: By this logic, we could solve the problem by reverting back to the year 1856. The “times” aren’t the problem; it’s the attitudes which characterize the times.
      – “What matters today is the speed of news that the quality.”: I’m assuming the “that” was supposed to be “than,” but even then we’re still a couple words away from a coherent sentence. Needs the addition of a “rather than” or “more so than.”
      – You use “hence” too much. Maybe invest in a thesaurus.
      – “after the writing is done, the editing is hardly given any importance to.”: Never end a sentence with a preposition! This is exactly the kind of grammatical error that your article is lamenting.
      – “This factor though does not matter to all but have greatly affected some.”: If your reader fails to make the leap that “all” and “some” are referring to “readers” (I had to read it six or seven times to get what you were trying to say), the entire sentence makes no sense.
      – “highly affected”: This feels like an over-dramatic choice of words for what you’re describing.
      – Your unfounded claims are beginning to contradict one another. Is the huge decline in “traditional news coverage” or is it in “online mediums”? Unless your point is that news media in general is vanishing, it really can’t be both. Is your argument that people are leaving online sources because they’re fed up with typographical errors, or is it that they’re leaving old media because the frequency of content in new media is more important to them than errors?
      – “Thus, it can be said that it is definitely not at all worthy to try so hard.”: What? Wouldn’t the decline in readership make it MORE “worthy to try so hard” to reclaim their diminishing readership?
      – “The decline of the quality of writing is a true fact as more than half of the readers complain about the errors online.”: 1) Once again, without a citation for this statistic, I have no choice but to assume you made it up. 2) If this is true, then how can you say that this is caused by readers’ indifference to errors so long as the frequency of content remains high? Wasn’t that the point you were trying to make? 3) Using comment section complaints as evidence that this “is a true fact” does not constitute a valid source (even if it was properly cited). If more than half of people commenting on a BuzzFeed article about Hilary Clinton complain that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to be president, that doesn’t make their ridiculous consensus true.
      – “Proofreading is no more done with dedication, resulting in the wide array of errors and mistakes.”: Should be “no longer.” Also, I couldn’t agree more.

      On a more general note, you have to understand that “quality of writing” and “quality of proofreading” are not synonymous. Something can be well written but full of typographical errors, or poorly written with no mistakes at all. I’d like to think that most intelligent readers don’t let a few spelling and syntax errors scare them away from reading what can otherwise be considered quality content.

      I hope I have not come across as being too harsh. I am aware that the Artifice is not an actual journalistic resource that necessitates the same level of editorial diligence that you’re calling for; however, if you’re going to make such bold claims, it’s important to lead by example (lest come across as a hypocrite). On that note, if you notice any errors in my rather lengthy comment, I encourage you to call me out on them. Though I don’t hold a comment section to the same standards as the content above it, the only way that we can improve the current state of editing is to begin taking it more seriously. Or, if nothing else, let the amount of untended errors in this article be a humbling experience, and treat others’ content with the same critical generosity that you’d like them to grant yours.

      Where Did All the Editors Go?

      A very fitting obituary. My only complaint is that the Artifice’s peer-review process couldn’t allow this to be published sooner (i.e. closer to the time it was written, and Wiesel’s passing), but it continues to resonate months later. Well done.

      A Sage's Passing: Elie Wiesel (1928-2016)

      The Matrix was from 1999, and therefore missed the cut for the scope of this article.

      The 21st Century Films Prepared For Classic Status

      A truly erudite analysis. Well researched, well written, and discusses a very fascinating subject. Well done.

      Lively Objects: Curating 'Broken' Electronic Art

      Solid analysis from a truly social scientific perspective. Not going to lie, I had been wanting to read this article for a while, but insisted on waiting until I was caught up with the series to avoid any possible spoilers (not yet realising that this was written before season six aired). I’ll admit, seeing your title for all those months made me expect more of a dramatic conflict between Rick and Deanna, but I really appreciated how the show explored their subdued understanding of one another, which you described and explained well.

      The Walking Dead: Rick vs Deanna