It was not until my professor said he was drawn to be in his forties that I thought it was possible for this to also be an older version on Charlie. He seems like a Charlie Brown that faced a harsh reality rather than an easy cartoon life. Perhaps the most immediate difference I realized was his protruding gut. Charlie’s protruding gut symbolizes gluttony or over indulgence. His shoe laces are sloppy and laying on the ground and that to me indicates disorder and carelessness. With that said, perhaps the best way to describe my initial reaction is disbelief that something that once seemed so innocent is now slandered and demented.
The Charlie Hebdo massacre is an example of how people can be inhumane and cruel to others. This kind of slanderous behavior toward a target group of people (muslims in this case) corals hatred. When we watched Charlie Brown as kids, he was a lovable harmless child. I am shocked to see Charlie in such a wretched and repulsive form. If this is indeed the Charlie Brown of reality, I’m shocked in the same way to see the reality of how poor people can relate or communicate with each other because of differences be it religion, race, gender etc. When there is a lack of communication it creates misunderstanding and chaos.
Appropriately, I believe the artist intended to create an image for the company. With that being said I feel as though it is a negative image. Perhaps the artist does not agree with the way the company portrayed the Islamic community. He views the company as spreading hatred and cruelty toward others in hopes that it will result in them indulging in profit. In this specific case, the hatred spewed by the company affected not only the companies’ target (Muslims/Islam) but it backfired and harmed them as well. This company indulged in hatred perhaps because it was getting them good ratings and money but in the end it hurt them.Similarly, the graphic shows an overindulged Charlie Brown that seems to have lived a life of regret. I believe the combination of the graphic and text was created to say the graphic is a reflection on the company.
Our instructor is challenging us to think critically. It would be hard to think of connections between a funny looking Charlie Brown and terrorism. I believe that our instructor is trying to gauge how deeply we can think and make something from nothing.
My reaction is not based on any religious connections. It’s based on knowing the feeling of being an outsider. Therefore my point of view can be seen as defensive because I used to be Muslim. Therefore I witnessed and experienced firsthand the discriminatory behavior of this countries culture toward that of Islam’s. I am no longer religious but I have a basic code of conduct for how to treat people and live life. My code says that everyone deserves respect until proven otherwise.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Thank you for being first to post, Moneytrees! I’m delighted to have a chance to react to your post while there is still time before the deadline for your classmates. Perhaps something in our conversation will help others. I invite you to reply to my reply if you like, or to edit your post if you wish.
I’ll react to your post as I read it, to give you an understanding of how a very interested reader hears each claim as it unfolds.
Paragraph 1 (P1).
—Verb tense problems. You mean “When I first SAW . . . , I DID not REALIZE that he . . . .”
—At what point did you change your mind about his age? And why do you now believe he is supposed to be older? Did I suggest so? Am I necessarily correct?
—Choppy grammar. When the second sentence begins with THIS, referring to a claim in the previous sentence, most likely the two sentences should be combined. The first sentence does not accomplish much and can easily be sacrificed to produce: “His obvious protruding gut symbolizes gluttony or overindulgence.”
—Irrelevant sentence. The suggestion that indulgences can be positive is not useful to your description and distracts readers from your negative portrait.
—According to me! Twice now you have referred to your own opinion. 1) “This to me symbolizes” and, 2) “that to me indicates.” Both are harmful to your authority. Do not remind readers that you’re only stating your own opinion. Make claims as if everyone would agree. 1) The gut symbolizes gluttony, 2) the undone laces indicate disorder.
—Unclear claim. We can’t tell what you mean by your last sentence, Moneytrees. When you say “something that once seemed so innocent,” you are hinting that Charlie Brown never actually was innocent but only appeared to be so. That’s probably not what you mean. When you say “is now slandered and demented,” you appear to be making two incompatible claims. “Demented” would indicate that Charlie is actually a slovenly, gluttonous, disreputable character. “Slandered” means he’s been unfairly accused of bad behavior.
—So, which is it? Was Charlie Brown once innocent but now depraved? Or was he never innocent? Or is he still innocent, but he’s been drawn to appear to be something he’s not? In the case of cartoon characters, being drawn unfairly would amount to being slandered.
Despite all those notes, this is a fair introduction. You’ve offered an initial reaction to the image that is perfectly reasonable. I like the characterization of this Charlie as a guy who has had a harder than usual life for a cartoon. We’ll have to wait to see if you redeem that observation by indicating what a hard life for Charlie has to do with the massacre of cartoonists.
P2. I’m deeply intrigued by this paragraph but entirely uncertain of its meaning, Moneytrees. A massacre is certainly cruel and inhumane. Your second sentence transitions awkwardly from the killing of a dozen people to “this kind of slanderous behavior,” by which you apparently mean not the killing but the cartooning. You’ll have to do a better job of guiding readers through your argument.
On the other hand, your writing is full of powerful phrases that indicate you can be a writer of consequence. I particularly like “the Charlie Brown of reality.” You haven’t indicated what the slander of your “slanderous behavior (toward muslims) is. You’ll need to do so without flinching if readers are going to understand you.
One last thing. What appears to be missing in this episode is understanding, not communication. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were certainly “communicating” with Muslims when they drew Mohamed on their covers. Chaos was the outcome, yes, but probably because their attackers understood them too well, not because they misunderstood. Is that possible?
P3. I want to clarify for you that Je Suis Charlie is not a company. It’s just an ephemeral expression, a viral phenomenon, a gesture from millions of people who wish to stand in solidarity with some individuals who were murdered after they chose a particularly risky way to express their beliefs. Your point is that the maker of the image wants to portray the cartoonists, or the magazine for which they worked, as spreaders of hate. Is that it? Hate for profit? That’s pretty despicable. When you say the “graphic is a reflection of the company,” I take it to mean its creator meant to portray the magazine (Charlie Hebdo) and its cartoonists as “demented and overindulgent,” to use your earlier language. If you could make that clear and unambiguous, your paragraph will be improved.
You should separate out the last few sentences into a paragraph of their own, beginning with “Our instructor . . . .” It’s a new topic worthy of its own space.
P4. If I understand correctly, you don’t mean “defensive” where you use it. You might mean “sensitive” or even “overly sensitive,” or perhaps “understandably sensitive.” You mean that you recognize and understand the offense Muslims took (take) to the drawings of Mohamed because they seem compatible with a general discrimination or disrespect you yourself experienced. Try to say that without so many “Therefore”s.
You haven’t finished yet, Moneytrees. Your very powerful last sentences need to be connected back to the disrespect the cartoonists showed, and off of which the magazine made profits.
You have a good essay-in-the-making here. Don’t quit after a strong first draft.
LikeLike
I’m very disappointed to see that following my short novel’s worth of feedback, you haven’t edited your first draft at all, MoneyTrees.
Grade Code 5D3
LikeLike
Hello Prof. I have revised my post and would like comments. However there are a few things i would like to state. For starters my paragraph 2. I intended to make a connection between the hatred slander breeds and what that hatred leads to. The slander I am referring to is the pictures and comments that the cartoonist obviously created that had the Islamic community in an uproar.
I actually took your advice on splitting up paragraph 3 before i even read your suggestion. However i do feel as though my third paragraph makes clear that i am saying that the artist intended to create a negative image for the company.
LikeLike
OK Moneytrees, let’s look at this again.
P1. Your first paragraph assumes that your reader knows immediately and exactly what you’re talking about. Spend a sentence to provide the context necessary for what follows.
Do you want an example of how easy that would be to do? Just ask and I’ll provide one. It’s quite simple.
Whenever a sentence starts with the same words that ended the previous sentence, you need to connect the two sentences.
Combine these: Perhaps the most immediate difference I realized was his protruding gut. Charlie’s protruding gut symbolizes gluttony or over indulgence.
I guess we don’t use the word “slander” the same way, Moneytrees. When you say Charlie Brown is “slandered and demented” in your last sentence, you’re saying that he has a mental condition marked by disorientation, and that someone has unfairly accused him of a crime or shameful behavior. I can’t imagine who has done so.
P2. These next two claims are also very confusing:
—1. The Charlie Hebdo massacre is an example of how people can be inhumane and cruel to others.
—2. This kind of slanderous behavior toward a target group of people (muslims in this case) corals hatred.
The first is hard to dispute; the massacre was certainly cruel and inhumane. But what’s the connection to 2? Is the MASSACRE slanderous behavior? Could you possibly mean that the seedy drawing of Charlie Brown is slanderous behavior?
Is it possible you’re mixing up the blasphemous drawings of Muhammad with the drawing of a seedy Charlie? This drawing of Charlie Brown certainly didn’t outrage Muslims. The only place this drawing has ever gotten any attention is in this class.
It would take five minutes to see the covers of Charlie Hebdo that did offend the Muslims. They all featured drawings of Muhammad.
Are you clear on that?
You make an interesting observation about the inability of incongruous groups to communicate. Are you saying the fat, bald, slovenly Charlie Brown was drawn specifically to symbolize a failure of communication?
I’m trying my best here to interpret you.
P3. You’re much closer to the truth in your final sentence here than in your first, Moneytrees. As I tried to explain earlier, the drawing is a piece of art I plucked off the internet after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Its creator did not have Charlie Hebdo in mind at all. Only the designer (me) who put the Charlie cartoon together with the Je Suis Charlie slogan was making a connection of any kind.
You can stick with your original conjecture if you prefer, or you can use the facts to support a different conclusion.
P4. Agreed. Well observed, Moneytrees.
P5. Punctuation and grammar errors. Otherwise, a strong conclusion.
This shows improvement, Moneytrees. It’s still worth another rewrite though. On the other hand, it’s not a major assignment, so you should decide where best to spend your time.
I await your reply
Grade Code 4E2
Grades are decoded at Professor Conferences
Visit the Conferences page to make an appointment
LikeLike