When People Place Too Much Expectations On Seriously Flawed Characters

DISCLAIMER: This article was originally posted on Odyssey.


Although there are people analyzing the explanations of Daenerys burning King’s Landing with one camp saying there was no explanation since she killed innocent people while another saying she already asked Cersei to surrender, lost one of her dragons in the process, and decided that it was better to rule by fear than by compassion, I want to focus more on the audience who were evidently not expecting this turn in characterization to happen. However, Daenerys in the books is self-aware of her family’s madness which provided her internal struggle of wondering “What if I have the Targaryen curse? What if I become mad like my brother and father?” I do not know if the show laid the build-up to Daenerys’ destruction of King’s Landing because I only read the books, but based on the reactions that I have seen, David Benioff and Dan Weiss did not do a good job of foreshadowing it.

As for the scene itself, it was actually brilliantly filmed. The muffling of the background sounds, the peoples’ points of view of Drogon burning the buildings, Rami Djawadi’s droning musical score, the horror on Jon’s and Tyrion’s faces, and–most importantly–Daenerys’ wide-eyed face when she hears the bells provide a bone-shivering combination. Indeed, it was one of the few television moments which left me shaking.

Despite what most people are feeling, I do not think this is David’s and Dan’s fuck-you to the fans. Although I did think they took too much creative liberty with the series the moment it outpaced the books, I do not think this scene was in open defiance towards the fans. They were only working with what little they have left in order to conclude a deeply complicated series. Benioff did state that the reason for this change was because Daenerys always had a numb reaction to death around her even in the first season when she watched her brother die. However, such a character trait was too murky to be a sign of what was to come, since you could say that about any other character like Arya most definitely. It has less to do with sociopathy and more to do with desensitization, especially considering how before her brother’s death, she already witnessed what the Dothraki were capable of, by killing each other at the wedding as well as embarking on raids and raping women.

Another unpopular opinion of mine is that I think George R. R. Martin was wise in writing “Fire and Blood,” which is the history of the Targaryen dynasty in the first years of their reign, because it puts everything that happened in “Game of Thrones” into perspective and makes sense of every event that happens. In the case of Daenerys destroying King’s Landing, it is actually reminiscent of Aegon the Conqueror and one of his wives, Visenya, destroying EVERY Dornish castle to avenge their sister, Rhaenys. They did this for two years in what would become the Dragons’ Wroth. So if Daenerys is the “Mad Queen” for destroying King’s Landing, would it not make Aegon and Visenya the “Mad Couple?” The main reason why they do not overwhelmingly receive that moniker from fans is because “Game of Thrones” is not about them but about Westeros hundreds of years after them. Because the show managed to define an entire decade, it placed Daenerys as among the show’s most visible representative, which would then lead to the fan worship.

Considering how David and Dan just defiled their own show’s brand, I do not think I can imagine all of the memorabilia associated with Daenerys and her three dragons (specifically Drogon) that have become cheapened because of this course of action. If this decision betrayed the fanbase not just of a relatable character but also one with a consistent line of behavior, then it was a poor business decision as now people would probably start selling off their Daenerys memorabilia or flat out destroying them.

What made the worship of a fictional character a major red flag was when fans of the series were naming their own daughters “Daenerys” as though she was a canonized saint. Even if Daenerys was completely flawless, the name still would not have any bearing in the real world, since it is difficult to spell and pronounce to people who are not fans of the show or book series, whether they are teachers or employers.

A major flaw on the audience’s part is that they placed modern-day expectations on a character in a series based on Europe 600 years before their own time. A thing to keep in mind is that “Game of Thrones” and the “Song of Ice and Fire” series take place in a fantasy world based on the English civil war called the War of the Roses, which would be in the 1400’s. They want Daenerys to be a liberator of slaves, yet they completely ignore the difficult compromises she makes, such as marrying a Meereenese prince, allowing the fighting pits to remain open, and not giving enough to the people sickened by a plague when there was not a lot available. Within her grand quest to retake the Iron Throne with an army of liberated slaves, there were serious consequences in which she made the most uncomfortable choices, especially when diplomacy did not work and even had an adverse effect.

The audience saw her as the Breaker of Chains and not as a Targaryen, as a young woman who bases her ideals on an incestuous, slaughter-hungry dynasty. In this way, they placed their own biases on Daenerys’ identity by focusing on her quest for slave liberation and not her quest to reclaim the Iron Throne. It is not out of selfishness, but out of a genuine need to connect with what appeared to be the most relatable character in a series with lots of morally questionable characters. However, while Daenerys did not show indications of being a “Mad Queen,” there were signs that she was not going to be a perfect queen, since although she ended slavery in Slaver’s Bay, she indirectly disrupted the social order in these cities since she did not treat the slave market as a deeply integrated part of their lives that cannot be completely abolished within a single generation with the proclamation “Dracarys.”

When people stop calling Daenerys Targaryen the “Mother of Dragons” and start calling her the “Mad Queen,” it is a sign that these characters have easily changeable positions in the audience’s worship. In an abstract sense, it can raise the stakes of the story since it was dramatically altered and Daenerys as the “Mad Queen” could have worked, however this is a case of fans placing too much hope in Daenerys alone and the directors made such a decision too late when there is a series finale just approaching and when this should have been hinted at episodes if not seasons beforehand. So I am in complete agreement with the YouTuber WhyCreate, since David and Dan made an irresponsible choice in making this completely unpredictable change in Daenerys when it should have been hinted at a lot earlier like in the books. As for the fans, evidently they were in love with the characters of the series, but they are not beacons of morality and virtue, as George R. R. Martin himself made perfectly clear numerous times.

A Defense Of The Mock Trial Scene In “The History Of King Lear”

DISCLAIMER: This article was originally posted on Odyssey.


There has been controversy among scholars of whether the mock trial scene in The History of King Lear (1608) should have been kept or taken out in William Shakespeare’s later edition of the play titled The Tragedy of King Lear (1623)

Upon arguing that the mock trial from the Quarto version of King Lear should be included, detailing the characters’ involvement in this minor scene is important. While it may have appeared trivial to the audience members in 1608, this scene provides an ominous point when the play changes dramatically. While other characters do serve their own roles in the mock trial, the most important character would have to be Edgar.

He seemed to be the only person in control of himself while the Fool is abetting his “nuncle’s” madness and Kent is clearly uncomfortable with the whole ordeal. What is interesting is that Edgar is not that different from Kent and the Fool, since he is playing a character, just as Kent is disguised as a servant named Caius and the Fool’s place in Lear’s court is to be his entertainment while also subtly forewarning him of any possible misjudgments. What makes Edgar important from the others, however, is not what he does in the moment but afterwards in the play. Later in the play, when Edmund is assembling his army, Edgar emerges from his disguise as a messenger and duels his half-brother. So Edgar’s penchant for disguises enable him to change the plot of the play.

The importance that Edgar has, alongside the Fool, is being made a judge for Lear’s “court,” even though he is supposed to be just as mad as Lear. The choices of judges for this “trial” are meant to represent the injustice of society as Lear saw it. The inclusion of the mock trial should show how much Edgar, as Tom o’ Bedlam, manages to witness the descending madness of King Lear, willing to put his own daughters on trial for the simple act of refusing his attention, specifically Goneril for “kicking” her father, as he saw it.

Being a witness to Lear’s “trial,” Edgar would comprehend how a human being would not be in a stable state of mind and would eventually understand how to handle his father when becomes blinded and suicidal. That is why he decides to “trifle thus with his despair is done to cure it.” Edgar, continuing to be in disguise, would know to play with delusions if it meant placating these two men.

When Lear calls his daughters (without subtlety) dogs that bark at him, Edgar panders to Lear’s madness by telling them to “avaunt.” When a cat and a stool were made as “Goneril” and “Regan,” they are put on trial, but when the cat runs off, Edgar is forced to act as Lear accuses him of aiding her escape. Another moment happens when he finds Lear wearing a crown of weeds and he supposedly gives him payment for his services and mentions bird before prompting Edgar to say a password.

When the mock trial strays from importance is when Bessy the Boat is mentioned. Clearly, this was the part that was reserved to 1608 since it came from a popular ballad at the time. Other than to make some misogynistic jokes, this may have been referenced by Tom and the Fool in order to improvise and maintain Lear’s delusions.

The hatred Lear spewed was not simply the aftermath of interfamilial drama, but a problem that could divide the kingdom in more ways than he intended. Edgar would know the rivalry between Lear and his daughters would eventually culminate into the civil war that happened later in the play. When a gentleman approaches Lear and Gloucester, Edgar immediately asks if a battle was happening. Edgar would not have gained this resourcefulness, as well as not escaped the house when Gloucester announced Goneril and Regan’s arrival, if he was not perceptive enough to see it coming.

Edgar would also gain insight as to how much Lear distrusts his own daughters. This would be important information to Edgar since his illegitimate brother forged a letter threatening to kill Gloucester in order to take his place as heir. In his soliloquy after the Mock Trial, Edgar shows sympathy for Lear, since his own family is in disarray.

In one of Tom’s delusional episodes, he tells a demon taking the shape of a nightingale that he will not feed it. Although this rambling serves the purpose of Edgar trying to make Tom o’ Bedlam into a convincingly mad man, it may also be ominous, when it referred to Edgar not “feeding demons.” It may have to do with what he said earlier about looking “…where he stands and glares.” He could be referring to the demons that haunt him, King Lear, or both. Perhaps Edgar is talking about the dangers of playing into Lear’s delusions within the guise of insanity, even though he had no choice but to play along.

Unlike King Lear, when Edgar leads Gloucester the supposed cliffs of Dover, he does so with the knowledge of how to deal with someone who is not in his right state of mind. In Gloucester’s case, he has become blinded by the two sisters and their husbands and as a result he has become suicidal. Telling the audience that he must pander to delusional men in order to guide them to sanity, Edgar does not immediately tell him that he is his son, since his father would not know how to act being reunited with a son who he believed wanted him dead.

Although the Folio version still included Edgar, the Fool, and Kent grappling with Lear’s madness, it did not magnify itself with any symbolic significance. The Folio version did not carry Lear’s madness from Act III to Act IV with his illusion of continuing to be a powerful king.

The mock trial scene in the Quarto version of “The History of King Lear” is a part that can be underestimated, as it helped one of the major characters, Edgar, develop a larger role later in the play. Removing the mock trial in the Folio meant removing the development of Edgar as a character who is able to use his wits to placate a mad king.


Works Cited

Edited by Stephen Orgel. “King Lear: 1608 Quarto, by William Shakespeare.” Penguin Books. Pg. 2-138. The Pelican Shakespeare. 2000.

Edited by Stephen Orgel. “King Lear 1623 Folio, by William Shakespeare.” Penguin Books. Pg. 139-270. The Pelican Shakespeare. 2000.

Edited by Gary Taylor and Michael Warren. “The Folio Omission of the Mock Trial: Motives and Consequences.” The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear. Pg. 45-56. Oxford Shakespearean Studies. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1983

Image Citation: YouTube

No, Writers Are Not Lazy Daydreamers

DISCLAIMER: This article was originally posted on Odyssey.


If anything, the fact that writers pace about proves that their minds are functioning, either contemplating all of the words to be written down or to be avoided. While progress is not made on the paper, it does not mean that progress is not made in the mind.

If a writer is not day-dreaming, he is dreaming the inspiration for his novel the same way Robert Louis Stevenson came up with nothing to write about until he dreamt of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. As such, if the process of formulating what words to write involves an unconscious part of the mind, then this process is beyond the control of the writer. Creativity is not a phenomena to be forced, rather it is processed through repetitive thought and the distractions could become inspirations. It can only require spontaneous moments of epiphany in order to conceptualize new, original topics to write about.

Procrastination can be an ordinary part of a writer’s life, especially if it is used in a way of managing anxiety and fear of failure when it is hard to materialize a story out of nothingness. So it is unlike what King Lear would said, “Nothing can come from nothing.” The process of writing is just too complicated to pinpoint and procrastination seems to be a major component. It is not one that would be readily accepted nor is it desirable but it does help facilitate the thinking process.

However, the production of idea invention can only be stimulated by the increased activity in the frontal lobe. Originally, the brain activity was thought to have been divided between the left and right sides, but when it involves creativity it mainly has to do with the connection between the temporal and frontal lobe. This is how exercise, phototherapy, and a functioning dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (responsible for working memory and flexible problem solving) can help with depressive and non-depressive frontal lobes that have lesions that can result in a decrease in writing ideas.

Since it is hard to expect any productivity from an unproductive circumstances such as the delay of idea invention, I would expect there to be more research into this issue. However, the issue remains that writer’s block is a completely normal part of the writing process and is to be expected. When it is expected, then a cure for it would also be already planned.

David And Dan’s Missed Opportunity On Episode 70

DISCLAIMER: There will be spoilers on the Episode 3 of Season 8. I also want to be clear that I am not a Game of Thrones theorist, since I am not as entrenched in the television series as a lot of people are, so take what I say with a grain of Iron Island salt.


So far, the only Game of Thrones theorist that I have seen discussing the Night King’s death is WhyCreate felt underwhelmed by it. He states that the battle was still a good spectacle regardless. As much as a like his channel and would highly recommend people subscribe to him, that type of praise only goes so far into downgrading the overall story known for unexpected twists and incredibly high stakes for the characters. The unexpected twist in this episode for me was more confusion and less about saying “What the hell were you doing?” and more of “What the hell were you not doing?”

It isn’t so much the fact that the Night King was killed by Arya that I had a problem with. What I did have a problem with is that David Weiss and Dan Benioff missed a chance to make the death clever. Since they already take creative liberty at this point with the show, they could have had Azor Ahai show up out of nowhere, leaving all of the characters stunned with only Melisandre understanding what is really going on, Azor Ahai leads the Living Army to fight against the Night King, and after the battle is over, Azor Ahai would place his foot on the Night King’s corpse and take off his disguise revealing himself to be Arya Stark.

They could have been clever but they missed it. I am sure the fans would be pretty pissed, but they would probably be less pissed (and less confused) if it went that route. However, this might pave the way for more insight into the future episodes and the series finale, so I would expect a lot more speculation about this twist. But in my case, the directors missed the target by a long shot.


Image Attribution: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). Trip & Travel Blog “A Drone Over Winterfell!” Flickr. Uploaded on August 1, 2015. Changes include filtering. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tripandtravelblog/20201280075/in/photolist-wM7QLk

10 Archaic Words You Usually Find In Classical Literature

I actually cannot find the definitions even in Wiktionary. Though I do think that for some of the words on this list which are still used today, it is hard to pinpoint the contexts in which they are used.

Since the literature itself was usually translated in the 19th century, then the words that were relevant to that time period would be used as the best possible cognates to the original translations assuming the works were not in English. So anyone who is looking into the body of English literature would be hard-pressed to continue studying it, since he would have difficulty reading out-of-date language. This list would hopefully alleviate that struggle and ease the studying of English literature.


In Modern English, we would use that word as a verb to refer to “supplementation,” such as in the phrase “to eke out a living.” However, in Middle English, particularly in the “Canterbury Tales” it was used to mean “also” or “in addition.”


Of course, the word nowadays refers to a noun that elicits laughter, but hundreds of years ago, humor referred to a person’s temperament. Determining it involved a now-debunked scientific method of classifying anyone based on four humors: 1. if a person was easily angered; 2. if a person was cheerful by nature; 3. if a person was melancholic or easily given to sadness; 4. if a person was relaxed or easy-going.


Not only do we think of the word industry, as referring to capitalism pertaining to the citizens’ relationship with the cityscape like in the word “industrialization,” but also when referring to a niche market, such as the film industry. However the word industry was also used to refer to the ethic of hard work. Benjamin Franklin was the most notable advocate of this concept in his Autobiography.

In sooth

We do not hear this phrase anymore, but we do know what a soothsayer is, which is someone who foretells a prophecy; so what would the sooth imply? That this sayer has knowledge of something. That is why “In sooth” is the archaic translation for today’s phrase “In reality” or “In truth.” Just like a lot of the phrases on this list, this phrase can be found in William Shakespeare’s plays.


This word, used in the modern times as a verb meaning “to expand,” was actually used as a noun to refer to a piece of land, more specifically in the religious context.  This is most definitely the case in Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” when he mentions that:

“…the earth don’t willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts.”


Not usually used to refer to one’s own skin color or geographical origin, rather to refer to one’s own family or lineage. This can be found in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher in which the narrator relates that:

“I had learned, too, the very remarkable fact, that the stem of the Usher race, all time-honored as it was, had put forth, at no period, any enduring branch.”

That word can also be seen in the “Eddas” which are a collection of lays detailing tales in Norse mythology, specifically with the context of race referring to variations of world-origin, such as the races of the Alfar, Jotunn, Dwarves, and Men.


This refers to food eaten at a meal, specifically within the context of a feast gathering. This was seen in The Mabinogion, whenever one of King Arthur’s knights ate a meal.


It is a bowdlerization of the phrases “God’s blood” and “God’s wounds,” which is meant to be a profane expletive in Shakespeare’s time.


Used in Shakespeare’s plays, used as an interjection.


This adjective means “to be accustomed to,” however it was never placed in front of a noun to modify it, rather the modification occurred when it referred to a person’s state of mind, which then follows with a verb, as though saying that the person has a habit of initiating the said verb.

This was primarily used in this context in William Shakespeare’s Richard III.

“Nor cheer of mind that I was wont to have.”


Today, the word is spelled wrath, and it refers to a noun not an adjective. In classical literature, the word wroth meant “a wrathful state of mind.”

An Analysis Of The Roles Of Kings In “Beowulf”

DISCLAIMER: This was written as an assignment for my British Literature class and was originally posted on Academia.edu


In the days of the epic poem Beowulf, a king’s strength was determined by his will, competence, wealth, and power. He had to rule over entire tribes of people and had to be willing to put down any rebellion. But he was human, for he needed warriors to fight for him and counselors to advise him. Even in old age, a king had to set for himself and his people a good example and prove himself worthy of continuing a line of successors. It was a time within the poem when danger manifested itself in the form of monsters and enemy tribes, when the tribes needed a figure to inspire and lead them.

The kings who are mentioned in Beowulf may appear to divert from the main plot but their reigns are compared between Beowulf, Hrothgar, and the kings before them. They are presented both as examples to live up to and cautionary tales to avoid becoming bad kings. Hrothgar was compared to King Eormenric, who acts as a negative foil to him, since he was very greedy, whose wealth was eventually claimed by a warrior named Hama (Beowulf 67, Lines 1197-201). When praising Beowulf, Hrothgar brings up King Heremod who killed his own comrades, refused to pay tribute to the Danes, and lost happiness in the end. Like Eormenric, Heremod is also used as a foil making Beowulf appear noble by comparison. Hrothgar forewarns him “So learn from this and understand true values” (Beowulf 77-8, Lines 1709-23).

The epic poem begins by narrating the lineage of Hrothgar going back to his great-grandfather Shield, an orphan who directed the aggression from his earlier years within the mead-hall and among his enemies into maintaining order among the tribes. It begins with Shield in order to magnify the significance of Hrothgar’s background as an inheritor of the kingdom founded by his ancestor (Beowulf 41, Lines 4-25). Lineage determined how a king was recognized for his legitimate right to leadership, which was important in the poem to refer to him by his relations to past royalty. A common name that is given to some of the characters are based on their filial ties, such as Beowulf being called “son of Ecgtheow” and Hrothgar as “son of Halfdane.”

Since the lineage of the king provides legitimacy to his reign, so would his wealth, especially if it was earned. Kings had to exhibit their wealth, particularly when the kenning “treasure-seat” was used to describe Hrothgar’s throne, which was surrounded by all of his hoard and war spoils (Beowulf 44, Lines 168). Hrothgar also had to ride fashionably atop his royal saddle while being surrounded by shield-bearers, when accompanying Beowulf to the “troll-dam” of Grendel’s mother. This was to demonstrate his power to any in the way as well as to protect him (Beowulf 71, Lines 1390-411). The construction of the mead-hall would have to be suitable to a king’s companions, since it is what unites them amidst the struggles from other tribes and—in the case of the epic poem itself—monsters. Heorot, the mead-hall where Hrothgar and his men celebrated, comes from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning “hart,” which refers to antlers and represented royalty among the Anglo-Saxons (Beowulf 42, Line 78).

Even though kingship was passed to the next generation, members of royalty still had to earn that right, just like Shield did to become king and just like Beowulf receiving the title “hall-warden” which was rare to give anyone (Beowulf 54, Line 653-61). In some parts of Beowulf, Hrothgar was dubbed “the helmet” of his people, which could suggest that the king had to be both physically and mentally impenetrable (Beowulf 37). In order to exercise his authority, a king had to be competent enough to do it. It was the reason why Beowulf was chosen by Hygd, Hygelac’s wife, to become king of the Geats over Hygelac’s own son (Beowulf 90-1, Lines 2367-72). What was evident by this sudden shift of traditional primogeniture was that life was brutal during the time this poem was told and the only opportunities of social mobility were to found in the battlefield. Beowulf also had to earn the trust of allies, like Eadgils, who he aided in his struggle against King Onela (Beowulf 91, Lines 2391-6). Not only did he have to be competent, but a king also had to be brave. This was especially the case when Beowulf was willing to confront the dragon and endure its fire and poison, even in his older years. He even advised his men to stay back while he fights it (Beowulf 93-4, Lines 2510-37).


To read more, visit the paper uploaded on Academia.edu



“Beowulf.” The Norton Anthology English Literature: The Major Authors: Volume 1, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 9th edition, W. W. Norton & Company, 2013, pp. 36-106. 12 Oct. 2016.

10 YouTube Channels With Videos I Watch More Than Once

DISCLAIMER: This article was originally posted on Odyssey.


These videos uniquely mix informative and aesthetic content into an addictive connection which gives me more than one reason to watch them. This is definitely important if the reasons are to entertain and educate.
As for political opinions, although I do not completely agree with all of them, none of these YouTubers have this dogmatic attachment and understand the complexities within the human sphere.

1.  Brows Held High (Kyle Kallgren)

It is interesting seeing the references of old art being used with a modern twist. Kallgren offers brilliant insight into any topics involving avant-garde films or William

Shakespeare’s plays, by making connections that are not usually seen, whether it has to do with the common speech inspired by Shakespeare’s literature or translating his plays into different languages.

2. ContraPoints (Natalie Wynn)

Specifically, I am more fascinated by Natalie’s more recent videos, which are when she was transitioning her gender and when she started relying more on the trippy effects of the colored lighting and the dynamics of her complex characters personifying any part of the political spectrum.

Although there are long skits, what makes them appear less time-consuming is the use of lighting and props that make the experience about as interesting as the topics themselves.

3. Geography Now! (Paul Barby)

It’s time to include Geography…NOW!

This is an ambitious project including a collaboration from many types of people, from many vocational and cultural backgrounds. What makes this channel so fascinating is how Paul is able to elaborate on these countries as though they were individuals with unique relationships and personalities.

4. Jim Sterling

Coupling gameplay footage with his undying devotion to the consumers, Sterling manages to criticize the TRIPLE A gaming corporations whenever they actively take advantage of their products’ cult followings. He relates this information alongside his raunchy humor.

5. NativLang (Joshua Rudder)

Rudder may be the only YouTuber who can actually make linguistics into a fun topic to learn about. That should tell you something when would be typically viewed as a very dry topic. Whether it includes 2D or 3D animation, what really matters is how the linguistic information is easily explained.

6. Overly Sarcastic Productions

What makes these videos unique are the hand-drawn 2D still animations which can show the candid, organic nature of the channel. The narrators summarize plays and historical events with humorous and sarcastic acting (thus the title of the channel).

7. Rousseau

If you have ever wanted to know what that classical song was but was unable to find out what it was or how it is played, then I would highly suggest Rousseau. She plays these songs on the piano with the keynotes being shown in various colors. She not only plays classical songs but also covers modern songs in a piano version.

8. TEDx Talks

There is a lot of in-sight when it comes to TED talks, especially when it is a subject you are interested in. They can definitely blur the distinction between creative and scholarly work, when searching for many topics to learn about. This particular video encapsulates it because I think the subject is intricate in itself and the presenter has a lot of energy.

9. Terrible Writing Advice (J. P. Beaubien)

I already wrote an article about Beaubien, but what I didn’t discuss further was how addictive his content can be. What can truly make these videos so entertaining is how relatable they are to any writer who may have encountered mistakes in the past, as well as the simple yet effective still animations that illustrate the tropes that he talks about.

10. Thug Notes (Greg Edwards)

This is a special shout-out to my homeboy, Dr. Sparky Sweets!

In delivering the summary and the scholarly discussion about the particular piece of literature, Edwards uses a lot of slang for humorous effect. This is definitely what makes the reading humorous and insightful.


Image Attribution: YouTube