2/18 This is the part where I look deep inside myself.

Okay. So I'm pretty good at creative writing. I'm not going to lie. But am I good at research writing? I probably could be if I felt like it.

Ow. That sounds really bad... So what, I'll leave it.

Anyways, let's go through the sources I chose and see if they're really okay or not. The 2008 article may be from 2008, but that doesn't mean it's like, bad. In fact, I see it's datedness as a helpful glimpse into a time when the internet was young and the relationship between comedy and identity was only beginning to really sprout. It gets really in depth about not only the celebrity response to the writer's strike, but internet humor as a whole. I didn't really focus on its statements about internet humor as a whole in my critical review. That's kind of a big miss. Whoops.

The TEDx video serves as an interesting addition because it provides a distinct definition of how humor is created, while still stating that humor works on a individual basis as a verbal asterick. This was a great source to use in my opinion because it provides a nice starting point for my analyses of humor as it relates to identity.

The third source I used, the Wall Street Journal essay, was a little different in its message. It was much more opinionated and actually made an argument as opposed to explaining a phemonmena. I thought it would be a good idea to include this source because it makes inferences based on literal science about the effect humor has on people. In the video I talk about how it relates to me specifically but I forgot to mention how internet humor is increasingly becoming a part of social identity, possibly even out of dare I say: necessity!!

If you couldn't tell earlier, I don't like boring writing, so I was very happy with the feedback that my neighbors wanted to keep reading. They also stated that my strength is in the way I argue my points. However, because this is "research writing" I was told that my summaries of my sources were dispropportionatly weaker than my critical responses to them. I don't want people to be confused about what I'm even responding to, so I have to make sure to be more thorough with my summaries so as to not jump the gun.

*Unit 1*