Response to Carolina Reader Essays

The first article that I chose to read and then respond to from the Carolina Reader was “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn,” by Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun. (63) The article is a commentary on today’s society, especially about the young people. The authors are unhappy with the way in which society is changing, because it is an extreme difference from what they are accustomed to. The central claim of this article is that today’s society / generation is different from those in the past. These people are more narcissistic and more self interested then previous generations.

The authors give many reasons and evidence as to why this change is occurring in today’s society. They talk about different Internet websites that are causing this idea of narcissism to grow. The warrant is that these websites are allowing “self-regard blossom even more.” (63) They also talk about the increase of self-interest and how the programs that many “elementary schools adopted 20 years ago” (64) are causing these narcissistic attitudes. They are saying that it is the fault of the elementary school programs because of what they taught; everything is about me. The warrant is that teaching everything about me will lead to a narcissistic attitude. Going with the idea that the current generation is much different from previous generations, the authors talk about how “current freshman are much more interested in financial success and less in a ‘meaningful philosophy of life.’” (65) They are saying that it is bad to only be interested in financial success.

There is some mention of the opposing views and how it is necessary, in some cases, for people to “stress confidence and esteem,” (65) for certain circumstances and certain jobs. The authors did not, however, really refute any opposing views. This was more of a one sided article that talked about the issue of narcissism in today’s society.




The second article that I chose to read and then respond to from the Carolina Reader was “My Plan to Save Network Television,” by Charlie Hauck. Charlie Hauck, who is a television writer and producer who wrote the article for the New York Times write the article. The article is about the author’s view on television audiences. He feels that the demographic that should be allowed to watch television is from age 18 to age 49. He claims that older people, over the age of 49, should not be allowed to watch television.

Charlie Hauck gives some fairly good reasons as to why he believes that people over the age of 49 should not be allowed to watch television. He first states that, “Advertisers want to lock in viewers’ buying habits early in life, not struggle with them to change brands in their last few decades.” (332) By locking in their buying habits early in life, they will be more familiarized with the product. He feels that these over-49 people “do not buy interesting products [and]…They detract from the hip environment advertisers seek.” (332) Since they are not going to be buying the products the advertisers do not feel they should be advertising to them. He goes on to state that younger people actually “dispose of it,” (332) referring to their disposable income. Since they are not spending as much on the advertised products, it is not necessary (in the advertisers mind) for them to watch the television.

The author does, however, show opposing views, and refute them. He talks about how people might be mad when he says that older people should not be allowed to watch television. However, he talks about how young people do not complain, “elderly people live in age-restricted retirement communities.” (332) I can somewhat agree with what the author is saying, however it could be stated in a more civilized way.