Profile

It’s 2012 in Savannah, GA and the bouncer at King’s Inn had a problem. Staring down the female college students before him, brandishing under-21 ID’s, the strip club doorman shook his head and began to deny entry. Cherith Fuller, 19, felt immediate relief. Only a few months into her comedy career, Cherith had excitedly traveled the four hours from Athens, GA alongside fellow comedian Samm Severin, to compete in the contest for a cash prize. Severin had neglected to inform her, however, that the stand-up comedy would take place in a dilapidated strip club on the rougher side of town.

Severin didn’t want to leave so easily. We’re preforming tonight, she told the bouncer. He eyed them skeptically. We’re comedians, she clarified. The bouncer waved his hand and they nervously shuffled into the nearly empty club for what Cherith now calls a “nightmare gig”. In between rounds of poll dances, they preformed to an apathetic crowd and angry strippers who heckled them for stealing stage time.

Four years later, Cherith Fuller’s career has come a long way from the strip club circuit. A mass media arts graduate from UGA, she now works as a production assistant and junior writer/producer at Cartoon Network. She preforms multiple times a month at shows around Atlanta and held the resident comedian position at Laughing Skull Lounge in Atlanta last year, preforming at all the weekend shows. She’s preformed throughout the Southeast’s stand-up comedy scenes, and has traveled to NY and LA on multiple occasions for shows.

According to Number Crunch, of the 157 stand-up comedy specials on Netflix in early 2016, only 14% were exclusively female performers. This is actually a very slight increase in female comedian on the major streaming platform since 2014. While female stand-up comedians like Amy Schumer have been massively successful in recent years, many still point to a disparity in the number of women entering, and succeeding professionally, in comedy on various levels.

“Sometimes there definitely can be a boys club. But it’s not a malicious boys club,” says Fuller.

Particularly in professional club venues, Fuller believes it’s just a little harder for women, whether it’s getting booked for shows with male headliners or being seen as more than just a female comedian.

“ I think most of the time the headliners who come through are men, mostly straight white men. So there’s this belief that if you have a male headliner, you want men who are hosting it, featuring in it. So it’s harder for women to get forward in that regard sometimes.”

Fellow female comedians echoed Fuller’s sentiment on sexism and the “boys club” in many stand-up comedy circles. Samm Severin believes better known female comics in Atlanta, like Cherith and herself, may be shielded from the worst incidences of sexism. The rare predatory behavior she has witnessed has been “calculated” towards newer female comedians, some of whom she believes feel “pushed out” of the scene after inappropriate comments or incidences. Like Fuller, she believes that for the most part male stand-up comedians aren’t purposefully antagonistic towards female comedians.

Ruthie Lichtenstein, a stand-up comedian who previously lived in Atlanta, cites recent scandals involving date rape druggings at shows in Chicago’s stand-up comedy scene, and the attitudes of male and female comics in the aftermath reluctant to acknowledge issues of assault, as illustrative that problems actually run far deeper than just a mere boys club mentality in stand-up comedy today.

One thing is certain, Cherith Fuller has gain respect from male and female comedians alike for her fearless performance style. Fellow comics describe her as something of a rarity in stand-up today, someone who has both a strong stage persona and sharp writing skills, while most comics tend towards one trait or the other. She’s unafraid to do “crowd work”, or frequently involve the audience in her performances, something that can make even seasoned comics nervous.

“Cherith definitely had phases – and if you asked her, I think she’d tell you the same thing – where you could hear her doing somebody else’s voice in the beginning. Because that’s what everyone does,” said Walker Smith, a former Athens/Atlanta comedian now based in Chicago, who preformed alongside Cherith at shows for years. Smith said two or three years into Fuller’s career, her comedy completely changed. He credits her rigorous amount of preforming and increased success in Atlanta to her evolution. “Particularly in Atlanta because she just had more stage time, you could hear her really decide what her show was about. That’s the really cool thing, [getting] to see people find what they’re actually good at. Because it takes so long.” Smith says even though he’s living in Chicago now, he frequently sees videos of Fuller’s comedy making the rounds on social media and the internet.

Cherith hopes to ultimately segway her work in stand-up comedy and work at Cartoon Network into a successful career as a television comedy writer. Even if she lands her dream job, she plans to continue doing stand-up comedy indefinitely. Lately, she’s been hearing the siren song of New York and Los Angeles, the two destinations any comic seems destined to call home if they’re serious about their craft.

The Hamilton Cult

I read The Hamilton Cult. I particularly enjoyed this essay for two reasons — one, I am a proud (if occasionally wary) member of the Hamilton Cult, and, two, I adore history. I am currently finishing up my minor in history at the University of Georgia and found that this piece addressed many of the qualms that I have with the musical, despite my love of it. Robert Sullivan, the author, discusses Hamilton from the perspective of someone who understands history. He questions whether or not the Alexander Hamilton in Lin Manuel Miranda’s production is a full enough version of the actual man — and clearly decides that the answer is no. He speaks with historian William Hogeland who complains about the musical’s lack of attention to the Whiskey Rebellion and the too-intense focus on romantic entanglements. He does, however, also admit that the theatrical piece is meant to make consumers fall in love with the “$10 Founding Father without a father.” From here, he jumps into a larger discussion about other ways that Hamilton has been portrayed over the years, asking readers to question which version of his history we are seeing and why we are seeing it now.

Voices:

Robert Sullivan, the author of the piece. It’s always important to consider who is writing and why.

William Hogeland, a historian who has written extensively about Hamilton and is bothered by the lack of accuracy of the musical.

The Rockefeller Foundation, funds trips for high school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to see Hamilton on Broadway.

An unnamed high school teacher who talks about his class and his thoughts on the play.

Lastly, I’d say that Hamilton’s voice was carried throughout, simply because of the emphasis on his history and writings. Hogeland uses these things as a way of giving Hamilton, the man, the chance to speak out across time against Hamilton the musical.

Postmortem Evaluation: Interview with Kelcey Caulder

What questions do you wish you had asked?
I think I pretty much covered it! Although I took longer with the interview than I would have liked (I wanted her to discuss how into theater she was with concrete examples, and I might could have shortened that phase), I don’t feel like I left anything on the table.

What worked well with your approach?
I had an intended beginning, middle, and end. I began with warm-up questions (her name, her major and grade level, how long she’s been a student at UGA, etc.) and introduced my main question (what one of her passions is (she’s a theater enthusiast)), launched into a lengthy middle section in which I got her to describe to me how passionate she was by relating stories from some of her theater exploits, and wrapped it up by asking why she was so passionate and ending the interview at a logical conclusion. As I mentioned above, while my middle section was longer than it could have been (most of those 20 minutes didn’t make it into the podcast’s two-minute time frame), the stories she told a) established that she was indeed a theater buff, and b) rounded things out nicely for the conclusion.

I also did well by making suggestions—during the interview—that would help things later on. It so happens that my lavaliere microphone and recorder’s mic capabilities died a few days earlier (I confirmed with Kelcey’s help before the interview started that that was indeed the case), so I was dependent on my recorder’s stereo recording for everything. Initially she was very animated, waving and clicking a pencil as she spoke, which I feared the recorder was picking up. After she finished her first animated question, I asked her to set her pencil down and explained to her the reason why. She promptly put it down, but then sat on her hands! I told her, “No, don’t sit on your hands! Be animated! Just without the pencil.” We laughed, and although she was stiff initially, as she told me her theater stories, she began to relax and became animated once more. This is the first time I’ve had the guts to correct an interviewee during an interview; in the past I’ve just let it ride—and suffered the consequences. I’m glad I spoke up. The brief awkwardness was worth the improved sound quality. My goal is always to get my interviewee to open up, but at the end of the day, I have to have a usable product (in this case, clear audio).

What could you have done better?
Shortened the middle story-telling section.

Other Comments:
I do have one point of contention. The authors of the two reference articles disagree with each other: one says to go into interviews with a few notes and key ideas instead of written-out questions, while the other says to go in with questions. Who’s correct?

The Techno Glaze

Article: “And Their Eyes Glazed Over” by Joelle Renstrom

Summary:
Professor Joelle Renstrom’s undergraduate students aren’t paying attention in class. Instead, their hands inch toward their cell phones around the 50-minute class’s 30-minute mark, and instead of engaging in chatting and playful banter immediately preceding and following class, their fingers are flying, engaged in text messages and swiping through Internet pages. As a result, she has a no-cell-phone policy within the class; violations—as in phones ringing during class—grant the class a free concert as the student must sing or dance as punishment (it’s in the syllabus). Other forms of technology are just as bad: students with laptops rarely use them to take notes or look at the class’s daily reading; instead, students are engaged in non-class online activities, such as shopping or checking social media. Even students who do take notes on their laptops miss out more than those who write notes by hand.

Distraction equals students missing out on vital information, and technology has made procrastinators out of non-procrastinators and worsened procrastination tendencies for those who already procrastinate. As Renstrom teaches classes on writing and research, she has noticed—and various researchers have shown that—what we read affects how we write. Online materials are geared toward simplistic syntax, and she has noticed the detrimental effects to her students’ grammar, word-processing, and critical-thinking skills. Even when the occasional rare student does make a breakthrough into technology’s harmful effects, that insight washes over the rest of his or her classmates who sit glassy-eyed, already zoned out and tuned back into their little worlds. While Renstrom is forced to embrace technology in the classroom for reasons she enumerates in her article, she is depressed by the detrimental effects it has on the current generation raised by the Internet.

Characters and Their Roles:

  • Joelle Renstrom: protagonist
  • Renstrom’s students (undergraduates at Boston University who are taking classes on writing and research): antagonists who can’t get away from their technology long enough to pay attention in class
  • Studies by various researchers: used to back up her claims (unnamed but out of “So-and-so University” or “Such-and-such Institution”)
  • Theorists: also used to back up her claims
    1. Juan Enriquez: purports that the next iteration of humans, Homo evolutis, is one that can control its own evolution
    2. Amber Case: cyborg anthropologist who argues that we are cyborgs already because although the technology isn’t attached to our bodies, we don’t need to be implanted to be connected and unable to function without it
  • Chris: shy 19-year-old student whose phone rang in class, who busted out, as per the course syllabus policy (that students’ cell phones who ring during class either sing or dance), “Build Me Up Buttercup,” to which the whole class joined in without a cell phone in sight, finally engaging with one another

Interview Postmortem

Many of you have stated that you began your “interview postmortem” analysis as soon as you walked out the door. I think I can (somewhat jokingly) say that I began mine during the interview, for one thought I had as we were conversing was “I hope the mic is picking this up ok.” I had tested my mic before we began and I was sure it was recording, but Maryann possesses a voice that is both charming and very soft. I remember feeling uncomfortable with reaching over and adjusting its clip on her collar myself and not wanting to interrupt her by asking her to adjust it. But when I listened to the audio later, I wished I had sucked it up and done at least one of these things (or simply asked her to speak up a bit), because though the audio was certainly usable, there were moments where her voice trailed off towards the end of a sentence that were slightly hard to make out, and my voice sounded louder than hers even though I was not wearing the mic. (I know I’m loud, there’s no need to tease me about it.) So that’s something I wish I had done differently.

As far as content goes, however, I think our interview went well. Perhaps because we found that her passion was in fact a mutual interest, our conversation flowed quite naturally aside from the obligatory stifling of “yeahs” and “mmhmms” that punctuate most non-recorded conversations. I was proud of myself for only getting overexcited and talking over her once. I freely admit that a large portion of my relative success was Maryann herself, who is exceptionally articulate and was handing me gem after gem on a silver platter as far as quotes are concerned. (This actually made it quite difficult for me to cut down the interview to 4 minutes, but I would much rather have to cut down than scramble for material.) I think I asked fairly open-ended questions (“Do you find your thoughts wandering in any particular direction while you work?”) and let her have the final word (I try to conclude every interview with the question “Is there anything you didn’t get the opportunity to say or anything I should have asked you?”). Overall, I would say that the only slight problems I encountered were those relating to recording for an audio piece. Usually I am recording for my own records, so while I try to keep my interruptions to a minimum, it is also not a huge deal if there are coffee cup clinks or faint traffic noises or the occasional “mmhmm” in the background. The next time I record for an audio piece I think I simply need to remember that audio quality is truly paramount and adjust my speech (and my microphone) accordingly.

Voices

I chose to read “Like. Flirt. Ghost: A Journey into the Social Media Lives of Teens” by Mary H.K. Choi on Wired. In this piece, Choi spent time with 5 teens (two of whom were twins) in different parts of the  country to learn about how teens use social media. She admits that this is hardly a “representative sample,” but I felt that the piece still provides an illuminating window into how teens interact online and through apps. When I was a teenager Facebook was the big name of the game (the only big name, to be honest), and I have not adopted many of the newer applications that have come along (such as Snapchat and Yik Yak), which I am sure makes me incredibly un-hip. It is interesting to learn through voices who have adopted these programs what has changed about social media since I was a teenager, and what implicit and explicit rules govern its use.

Voices include:

Author Mary H.K. Choi, who provides background information and links together the voices of the five teenagers she interviewed.

Lara and Sofia, twin 16-year-old girls living in Silicon Valley who discuss Instagram use and what teenagers mean by “awkward.” (Subjects)

Eighteen-year-old Ahmad from New Haven, Connecticut, who explains flirting through social media. The smiley face emoji, I learned, may not be as good as it seems… (Subject) Note: Choi uses Ahmad’s thoughts on Snapchat to segue into an explanation of what Snapchat is and does, which is helpful to non-hip individuals such as myself.

Mira from San Francisco, who discusses how social media use (and the “likes” you receive therein) influence friendships. (Subject)

Fifteen-year-old Ubakum from Houston, who discusses being in the minority as an Android user and how she uses her phone to find new diversions through sites like Reddit. (Subject)

 

Interview postmortem

I find the biggest problem about my record is timing. I interviewed Lisa for about 7 minutes and it was really hard for me to cut it in 4 minutes.

Lisa was a really good interviewee and she provided lots of useful information, but there were still some sentences I thought was not really important. Cutting these sentences was really hard. For example, Lisa may say five sentences to answer one question, but I only need the first and the third sentence. However, if I cut the second sentence, her voice doesn’t sound natural, especially if there is no pause between the second and the third sentence.

Also, we did the interview in MLC. I thought it should be quiet, but there was a guy kept typing when we did the interview. I think the sounds of typing is little bit noisy.

Another problem is that when I record my voice, I didn’t know how to control my breathe, so I had to spend a lot of time to cut these breathiness.

If given another chance, I think I will ask Lisa has she ever talked her passion with her family and do they support her.

Voices

The article I chose is “Midnight in the Garden of East Texas”. The article is about a murder case: the town’s richest and snootiest widow was murdered by an acknowledged good guy. The odd thing is that even the guy murdered the widow, people in the town still think the guy is a very kind and nice guy.

Voices are as follows:

District attorney Danny Buck Davidson: He represents a outsider. He was surprised about Bernie’s good reputation, and he tried to tell everyone that Bernie is an accomplished actor who pretended to be a nice person.

A waitress: she thought Bernie is a sweet man.

Someone else: also thought Bernie is a nice guy.

One man: he thought it is hard to believe that old Bernie kill a person.

A woman: she didn’t even care about Mrs. Nugent, the victim, and thought Mrs. Nugent was mean.

Carthage’s congenial Methodist minister, the Revened E.B. Beasley: he thought Bernie still need prayers.

City councilman Olin Joffrion: Joffrion didn’t gave his voice, but just state what he saw.

One woman: she thought Bernie is the first on the list of people she knew were going to heaven.

Other woman came up tho the district attorney: she prayed for Bernie.

KGAS owner Jerry Hanszen: provide background information about the town.

Don Lipsey, former owner of Hawthorn, who had hired Bernie: he said Bernie showed no romantic interest in women at his age.

Bernie’s sister: she thought the loneliness Bernie went through in his childhood made it his calling to serve people.

Paula Carter, a fellow church member and a counselor at the high school: she thought Bernie brought a lot of compassion to the town.

Lloyd Tiller, one of Mrs. Nugent stockbrokers: provide his thoughts towards Mrs. Nugent.

A close relative of Mrs. Nugent: said Mrs. Nugents seemed to lapse into a low-level clinical depression.

A teacher at the high school,

A close relative of Mrs. Nugent thought Bernie enjoyed Mrs. Nugent’s money.

Bernie’s sister said Bernie was a buyaholic and found himself living a dream after he becoming friends with Mrs. Nugent. Also, she recalled that Bernie said Mrs. Nugent was controlling.

Ruth Cockrell, Mrs. Nugent’s first cousin said she doubt Bernie but didn’t know who to talk about because Bernie was so beloved.

Interview Postmortem

After reading the two articles, I realized that I could have been more prepared for my audio profile. I knew what general topics I wanted covered, but I did not go in with specific questions ahead of time. Although I think the responses I got from my subject fit into the overall theme, I could have done a better job of thinking in soundbites. I did not know how I was going to cut my sound clips, and I wish that I had stayed quieter in my interview. I spoke in between her words so it sounded more conversational, but I wish that I had stayed quieter and just let her speak until she had nothing less to say. Overall, it ended up working out, but I think a more detailed plan and direction going into the interview would have made for more quality sound clips.

Voices

The essay I read was called The Hamilton Cult, and it discussed the popular historical musical that is taking over social media. The essay questions the idea that the musical celebrates that our current society is “post-racial,” and that the narrative of an immigrant who arrives to America with nothing and works their way up is one that works with millennials. The essay explained that most people, politicians included, love the show and can’t stop raving about it. William Hogeland, a historian who has written about Hamilton, believes that the musical urges the audience to love a man they know nothing about. Hogeland explained that actual history is downplayed in the musical, especially the lack of attention to the Whiskey Rebellion. The essay then goes into detail about how Alexander Hamilton and his views have been applied in politics throughout history. Hamilton’s viewpoint was at the ultimate peak during Bill Clinton’s presidency. After an extensive look into history and different times The American Revolution had been written about throughout history, the essay goes back to Hogeland and how what he knows about Hamilton is not accurately portrayed in the musical.

The main voice in the article is of William Hogeland. Hogeland is a historian who agrees with the public about how theatrically brilliant Hamilton is, but said there are some historical imbalances of what actually happened during The American Revolution.

The other voices in the article comes from an unnamed a teacher and an executive from the Rockefeller Foundation, which sends high school students from low-income families to see the play. A teacher who went with his class is quoted in the essay as well, stating that he believes the play was a great experience for his students. He also deemed the play “a spectacle,” which Hogeland can agree with in some respects.