family guy

cant touch me

women in the workplace

Ethos: does knowing she is a student make her less credible?

What's the point of the East of Eden/Oprah's book club illustrate?

not self-serving or easily manipulated ppl: viewers of family guy

FG intelligently satirizes some aspects of American culture

point out weaknesses and defects of U.S. society in mocking and sometimes intolerant way
reflecting the reality, commenting on it

thus, the instructional video not only funny but insightful

viewers recognize the sickly sweet and falsely sensitive sexism of the 1950s by observing just how self-serving the speaker of the video is

the messages denouncing and ridicules sexism rather than condoning it

Taking these comments at Face Value would be as foolish as taking Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal at Face Value

SATIRE, candor

typical critique of family guy: bigoted and crude

put bigoted words into the mouths of characters, but these characters not represented positively.

not all of it offensive

is it true that no one would want to emulate Peter?

FG does not aim to hurt, creators take certain measures to keep it from hitting too hard
--what are these measures?

FG breaks down taboos, but do these taboos exist for a reason?

does she do a good job trying in the Freud theme?

the funniest jokes are those that hit home the hardest. the ones that let our animalistic and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious.

1.      How would you characterize Antonia Peacocke’s argument about the television cartoon Family Guy? What does she like about the show? What doesn’t she like? What would you say is her overall opinion of Family Guy?

As Peacocke writes in paragraph 8, “Family Guy intelligently satirizes some aspects of American culture”; this is essentially the argument she is making. What she likes about the series is what she sees as its generally amusing depiction of suburban life, which she is quick to point out is not meant to be realistic but rather outrageous as a means of revealing “the weaknesses and defects of U.S. society” (par. 12). She admits, however, that she doesn’t care for some of the more violent scenes (see her next-to-last paragraph), but her overall opinion is positive.

2.      Find two places in the essay where Peacocke puts forward arguments that she herself disagrees with. Analyze what she says about these arguments. What would you say are her reasons for including these opposing views?

Peacocke refers to arguments with which she disagrees in paragraphs 3 and 10, as well as paragraph 17. In the first instance, she initially acknowledges some merit to critical objections to Family Guy, but she later (par. 8) makes the point that such criticism results from a lack of familiarity with the show. In the other instances, she immediately argues against the position she presents. Including such opposing views makes clear that she has considered other arguments and reasonably rejected them.

3.      While making a serious argument, Peacocke frequently uses humor to make her points. Identify two or three examples where she does so, and explain the role that such humor plays in helping her develop her argument.

Peacocke uses humor in two ways, both in her own voice (note the wryly self-deprecating tone in paragraph 2) and in dialog snippets she excerpts from the series itself. The first example helps establish her relationship to the series, while the excerpts from the series serve to illustrate her thesis.

4.      Peacocke cites a number of authors with selections in this chapter, including Dana Stevens, Douglas Rushkoff, and George Will. How does she weave their ideas in with her own ideas? How fairly does she represent their views?

Peacocke uses Rushkoff’s analysis of young television viewers and The Simpsons as a way of supporting her own points about Family Guy; she intersperses his words with hers. She cites Stevens and Will for the opposite reason—in order to refute them.  Most students will say she represents their views fairly.