The art of trolling is such an interesting concept when you think about it. Not only at a scholarly level but on a modern one as well. Trolls are imagined as people who are hunched over big computers, constantly on online forums, looking for some poor chump to troll. While that stereotype makes up for a small percentage of trolls, in the 21st century, trolls can range from anyone, to an ordinary nine to fiver to the Queen of England. 

In Rachel Barney’s key definition of trolling, she focuses on the many different types of trolling. Formally, trolling had to have a very aggressive and hostile behavior. Most modern trolling expands the idea of ‘hostile’ to fit behavior that is considered ‘disagreeable.’ Michele Tepper’s definition of trolling includes a ‘gatekeeping,’ aspect used as a method to keep out outsiders who didn’t understand the ‘joke.’ A key point to Whitney Phillips’ argument is how trolling has evolved to fit the modern era, forcing the original meaning of what a troll and trolling is to follow. The definition of trolling now is more flexible to fit the perceiver. Some might define aggressive or belittling behaviors as trolling, while others would rather describe it as ‘fishing.’ 

The funny thing about trolling is that scholars can’t even argue on a single definition, even the origins of trolling are unclear. Trolling has moved away from being seen as an anonymous user sprouting belligerent comments online. Being a troll isn’t such a touchy subject anymore, anyone can be considered a troll by the mainstream media. Online culture has taken the term ‘trolling’ and warped them into what they believe to be a troll, which can change depending on the observer. It’s quite fascinating that what was once viewed as a taboo subject is now normalized and sometimes even celebrated by communities. And while trolling is mostly seen online, it’s now not exclusive to the internet, although it is easier to troll on the internet than in real life. Causing chaos is easier when you’re anonymous, but it’s not a strict requirement to be a troll. Behaviors of what makes a troll have grown and will continue to grow, thanks to how the term has lost its original meaning over time.

Taylor Swift is a beloved celebrity. With a total of 10 studio albums, multiple sold-out concerts, and 562 awards, she’s adored by millions and has a solid fan base. Despite being well-loved, Swift is also a troll. Her trolling is mostly seen through her songs, where she has either deliberately called ex’s out by their names, or dropped hints about who she’s singing about. Hints that can only be picked up by loyal fans, followers, or Swift conspirators who keep tabs on her life. On her most recent album Midnights, Swift drops multiple ‘subjective’ hints about her feuds with multiple celebrities, such as Scott Borchetta and Kayne West. Even with ‘subjectivity,’ anyone who follows celebrity news would be able to conclude who she’s talking about. In November 2021, she also released a 10-minute music video for her song ‘All Too Well,’ where she calls out Jake Gyllenhaal and their past, toxic, relationship, without ever mentioning his name.

A compelling argument given by Barney is the belief that trolls can exist outside the internet. This aligns with how Swift trolls, and while there are moments of her trolling behavior existing online, most of her iconic moments can be seen in her music. Swift exudes the modern era of trolling, although her fans are a big part of why she’s able to have so much success in this field. Without her fans being able to read past all the subjectivity, without the ‘in’ group, Swift’s trolling would be non-existent to the public.

One of her bigger ‘trolling’ incidents is her 10-minute music video of ‘All Too Well.’ While Gyllenhaal’s name is never directly said, it’s undeniably about him. Several moments and items are referenced in the video that leads to him, most apparently the scarf and the handheld dinner scene. Another aspect worth mentioning is the length of the video. Swift created a 10-minute video that could have been put into a three-minute one. Not to mention that after the release, she had fans swarming to Twitter to troll Gyllenhaal themselves directly. Tepper explores the ‘gatekeeping’ aspect of trolling in her writing, and that same aspect can be applied here. Swift’s ‘subtly’ is only seen through fans who are in her fanbase. Swift perpetuates an ‘in group’ (seen through her music) by taking advantage of those not a part of it.

An important part of trolling is provoking a reaction. Fans trolling Gyllenhall is not the first incident where Swifties took to social media on a rampage. This is a common pattern seen with Swift’s fans when Swift herself is engaging in some trolling. She’s also elicited reactions from her exes, including Gyllenhall, John Mayer, and Seth Myers, who all had negative reactions to her music when she called them out. This includes but isn’t limited to “All Too Well, “Cardgion,” her album Red, and “Dear John.”

 In the fall of 2022, along with the new release of her album Midnights, she released a music video for one of the songs on the album, “Anti Hero.” In the video, there’s a scene that features Swift’s grown-up sons and daughter-in-law, who find out she left them nothing in her will during her funeral. They believe in her will that she has left a “secretly encoded message that means something else.” Swift ends up popping out of her casket and says, “P.S. There is no secret encoded message that means something else.” This little tidbit in her musical video calls out not only her fans but Swift herself and makes fun of how so many people think there are little hints in everything she does. This goes hand in hand with when she trolled her fans on Instagram back in 2020 when she changed her Instagram theme and posted a photo of seven palm trees. Fans came up with a theory that every photo she posted after the seven palm trees was a countdown to something new when in reality it was a coincidence. With Swift being a public figure, she definitely has more influence than someone who’s anonymous, but she still never fails to provoke reactions. She successfully drives fans crazy into thinking that there’s some underlying secret in her art. Thus, driving them up the wall if they haven’t decoded her hints, thinking that they missed something in the community that they’re supposed to be knowledgeable in. 

Swift isn’t the only beloved celebrity that can be considered to actually be a troll. There are celebrities like Greta Thunberg, the former Queen Elizabeth II, John Mulaney, and so many others. Thanks to expanding the original definition of what a troll is to fit the modern era, it’s easier for people to fall into the category of ‘trolling.’ It makes me curious, excited, and yet nervous about the future of trolling and what it holds.

In my personal opinion, it can be argued that it is an art. Socrates considered ‘trolling’ an art, and while there are artistic aspects, trolling nowadays is meant to be provocative, aiming to upset an individual or a group of people. There are a surprising number of trolling guides online. Trolling can be seen as a divergence from rhetoric when rhetoric begins taking on new meanings. In the beginning, Socrates’ overall belief in rhetoric is that it’s more about ‘flattering’ your audience than actually saying anything of value. It can be argued that this belief can be applied to trolling, but in the opposite direction, as trolling commonly has a malicious and antagonizing aspect to it. A big thing for Socrates is that he suggests that people who master any type of art must be able to explain their success. I don’t think that trolling is something to be considered a success, at least to most. Those who troll and pull off trolling consider it a ‘win,’ as they were able to fool the person being trolled.

The aim of trolling, in a modern context, is for someone who posts or makes inflammatory, aggressive, rude, or excursive comments to either a group or an individual. The trolling is meant to provoke a reaction and elicit an emotional response. Trolls usually do this behavior for amusement or to achieve a specific result they have in mind, which makes it different from other art forms in this discourse. In Gorgias, Socrates establishes that rhetoricians say that rhetoric deals with what is ‘just’ and ‘unjust.’ However, it’s possible to abuse this kind of power, which is seen in trolling. A lot of the time, trolls see themselves as justice collectors, especially if the trolling is targeted to get revenge. Other art forms don’t deal too much with considering if something is ‘just’ or ‘unjust.’ Trolling is unique and almost an outlier when it comes to other art forms. When it comes to ‘success,’ in trolling, it’s only truly celebrated by the trolls. While other art forms can be appreciated and celebrated by all groups. And like other art, trolling does provoke a response, but it’s usually at someone else’s expense. Also, while other art forms can be loud, big, and obvious, trolling must have a level of subtlety.

I think trolling is teachable, to an extent. I mean that’s why there’s such vast information and knowledge on trolling. There are even ‘guides’ to help people troll successfully. But like any other form of ‘art’ or rhetoric, there also has to be some kind of natural talent. Some people are surprisingly good at being mean and leading others astray. It’s scary. And I think there does need to be some knowledge of the subject you’re trolling someone about. It’s easy to poke holes in something that has no foundation on the truth. It’s easier to troll and lie when you sprinkle an ounce of truth in there. The knowledge can be surface level, but there needs to be some. No matter the subject, whether it be about law or memes. I also think the form of trolling works against the ignorant first and foremost, but it can also affect those in the know, although arguably not as much. It affects the ignorant harmfully, playing on that ignorance in the rhetoric and the signs of blasphemy, harming them in the long run. I think it only affects trolls if they do it to each other, thus one troll becomes part of the ignorance.

I found an article by the New York Post about a bride getting ‘trolled’ on her wedding day. The video has over 100,000 likes on TikTok. A Utah bride hosted a workout class on her wedding day with her bridesmaids. She posted the video in March 2023, but she married her husband in July 2022. The bride, Kenndey Olson Hart, shared the video to display an activity she did on her special day. Instead of commentators congratulating her, they started to ‘troll’ her in the comments. The comments varied, from name-calling to comments and outwardly criticizing Hart. Many commenters felt differently than Hart did, and while the motives of the commenters are unclear, it looks like they were trying to bully and criticize Hart into agreeing with their point of view or driving her to take down the video.

When I typed in ‘troll’ in Google, under the ‘News’ section, this was one of the first articles to first pop up. The title has the word ‘trolled’ in it. However, in this case, I think the word troll acts more like a buzzword than an actual definition. No terms were explicitly explained in the article. A topic that is covered a lot in journalism classes is the use of buzzwords and clickbait titles. Writers want to grab the reader’s attention. With a dwindling attentiveness, authors will do almost anything to have their article read. I think this was what the New York Post was trying to do. However, the words ‘troll’ and ‘trolling’ have gotten overused to the point where people will consider any pushback from the public as trolling. In my opinion, the author labeled this incident as trolling because of how almost all the comments are either condemning the bride’s choice to work out on her wedding day by criticizing her appearance or bullying her for being from Utah. An example of criticizing her appearance is calling Hart an ‘almond mom.’ This is referencing moms, usually white women, who are super skinny because they don’t eat anything all day. Other comments are bullying her for being from Utah. An example of this is one commenter writing “What is in the Utah air?”

Last semester, I was once stopped from showing an article in a journalism course by my assigned class partner at the time because he thought the article, I was going to present was “a bad example of what we’ve been learning.” Well,  yes, there are bad examples, however, bad examples are necessary to highlight the good examples and show the importance of the lesson at hand. I am well prepared and aware that my article may not be the best example of trolling, however, it does put into perspective the scholar’s definitions and opinions we’ve been studying in class. There’s no true bad example if it contributes to the learning experience.

Rachel Barbey describes trolling as ‘unclear,’ explaining that there are many different types of trolls. The internet wants to call every ‘disagreeable’ person, contradicting opinions, or an attention seeker on the internet a ‘troll.’ Barbey argues why these categories of people don’t fit the aggressive and abusive behavior of trolls we have known. There is no exact art for this business. None of the scholars we’ve been studying would classify this situation as trolling, however, scholars like Barney would have put it under consideration.

Michele Tepper’s original explanation of trolling described trolling to have a ‘gatekeeping’ aspect. In her explanation, she described trolling as a ‘method’ to implement subcultural standards and was used to prove group membership. What’s intriguing about Tepper’s definition of trolling is she describes trolling as a game played by those who know all the rules versus those who don’t. In the wedding video, for example, there is some part of a game being played, especially when people are making fun of Utah. However, it lacks the enforcement of community standards because there’s no community to ‘protect.’ Communities can easily be formed, but there’s no clear community in this example. It also lacks Tepper’s boundary maintenance because there are no boundaries to be maintained. There are very few identifiers that trolls could look out for to signify outsiders. Some may argue those who disagree with the negative comments could be outsiders, but it’s more likely to be classified as a disagreement.

Whitney Phillips sees the evolution and differences between trolls of the past and trolls in the modern era. Where modern-era trolling describes itself as trolling, the former doesn’t necessarily flag itself by names or behaviors. Phillips also cited that depending on the attitude towards trolling, the describer may define trolling as mean or abusive, while someone with a more ambivalent attitude may define it as ‘fishing.’ When most people encounter the word trolling, they assume that all trolls must be angry or violent. In the example, the commenter’s behavior would be described as more of a ‘fishing’ tactic because of the tameness of the actions. However, some may argue that the comments are mean-spirited. Trolls are supposed to incite paranoia and can arguably be one of the main points that Phillips is trying to make, and the lack of paranoia that the comments consist of does not qualify this example as ‘trolling.’ Philips does focus on ‘subcultural trolls’ of people who self-identify as trolls but do not identify with the trolling behavior in general. I do not think that the commenters on TikTok should self-identify at all with the word ‘troll’. However, I do see why one of them would, especially because there’s no grasp of what the word truly means in this modern era.

I don’t think that this instance should be considered trolling. This situation is better described as harassment. The comments are pestering the bride about her choice to lead a workout class on her wedding day. They lack the malice, bullying, chaos, and the ‘in group’ mentality. While some of the comments are anonymous, most are missing this aspect as well, using their real names as their handle and even linking their Instagram in their bio. The bad thing about trolling is that the word is very generalized nowadays. People will throw out the word ‘troll’ to describe any type of mean comment. So, while I don’t think this is trolling in the slightest, other people may refer to this behavior as ‘trolling’ when it’s something else entirely.

In the article, “Trolling the Web: A Guide,” a troll is described as someone to attract ‘newbies’ and ‘flamers’ and utters information to them to make them look even more clueless and out of place, while also subtly signaling to fellow trolls that you’re trolling. All these comments lack any type of subtlety. A lot of the harassment online lacks this type of finesse and chooses to be outright. There are also no newbies to be pointed out. As mentioned, the only outsiders are the people who agree with the bride. However, can they even be considered outsiders because it was the bride who made the original TikTok?

The discussion of trolling is used very generally in today’s modern online culture. Trolling isn’t the only word to fall victim to the generalization. People use a lot of buzzwords that circle social media out of its original context since they’ve been in mainstream culture for so long. Some other examples are words like ‘woke’ and ‘click-bait.’ There is no clear sense of trolling. No matter how many scholars define it, no matter how many articles people read, people will take a very mainstream approach. The thing that is so interesting about trolling is that it does exclusively exist on the internet. In real life, it is very hard to have the qualities of a troll when the internet makes it so easy because there is easy access to amenities. It’s easier to cause chaos behind a screen than it is in real life. The term trolling and troll has lost its original meaning, especially with new generations adapting the term to fit their specific circumstances. There’s no true definition of trolling anymore. Everyone would classify it differently, which makes it harder to describe trolling instances. In an environment where almost everyone on social media is easily influenced, more difficult it is to keep the original meaning of a troll intact.

The ‘Karen’ meme is a well-known phenomenon, the word thrown around on various social media platforms. Karen is a term used to describe exclusively problematic, middle-aged, white women. These women are usually seen acting hysterical over the tiniest inconveniences, or in terms of internet slang, “out of pocket.” A lot of ‘Karen’ behavior tends to be absurdly racist, homophobic, etcetera.

Articles try to pinpoint Karen’s origin to Dane Cook, who famously mentioned the name during his 2007 stand-up comedy routine ‘The Friend Nobody Likes.’ In his routine, he made an observation that within each friend group there is at least one friend that absolutely no one likes. Cook pointed out that in a majority of female friend groups, the unwanted person is dictated to be a ‘Karen,’ why this specific name was used is still unknown.

Richard Dawkins was the first to coin the term ‘meme’ in 1976. Dawkins described a meme as a “unit of culture,” and these units could be ‘passed on’ or imitated. In today’s culture, we describe and determine memes as spreadable media. The internet sees memes as a communication heritage and is easily distributed throughout social media. Dawkins’ definition of a meme is outdated and doesn’t leave room for growth as technology evolves. Many see memes as vernacular, the word ‘meme’ is now being applied to describe not just photos but videos and jokes as well. And while an internet meme can spread in its original form, often it’s rebranded and reimagined.

Dane Cook’s original routine had a different meaning of the word ‘Karen’ to what society knows. Karen was a popular, older name that Cook used as a placeholder to describe a ‘bad friend.’ Now, the name is used to describe bigoted, entitled, and condescending white women. Karen has become so personified that a certain look is attached to the name, imagining women who are ‘Karen,’ to have a certain side-swept, bleach-blonde, haircut.

Since the spread of the Karen meme, the origin of the original seems irrelevant and pointless. What once was a harmless joke has now become an embodied character trait. The meme has been imitated, rebranded, and redone throughout the years and Cook’s joke no longer has a place within the Karen verse.

In Ryan Milner’s World Made Meme, he describes memes as “complicated narrow notions,” that “circulate without signature or citation.” Milner describes this as ‘memetic media,’ due to their unique atonement for multimodality, reappropriation, resonance, collectivism, and spreadability.

The above descriptions of memetic media are key to why Milner states that memes circulate without any specific signature or citation to their original owner and creator needing to be known.

Multimodality is one of the backbones of memetic media. It becomes easier to create and circulate new types of images, jokes, and videos because of how vast the internet is. Communication barriers are almost non-existent, and almost anything niche can be explained by broader groups or individuals. While it can produce original content, it’s more likely for a new meme to be reappropriated from older ones. The Karen meme has expanded to calling women who exhibit opposite characteristics of a Karen, ‘Sherry’ or another ‘cooler’ name. These women usually hold opposite ideals and dress differently than their Karen counterparts. It has even evolved to calling bigoted and ignorant men ‘Bills,’ or ‘Bobs.’ Both these new variations can be seen to be taken from the Karen model, but the credit is never given back to it and has separated itself from the so-called Karen verse.

To pinpoint the Karens, Sherry’s, Bob’s, and Bills of the world back to Dane Cook would look ridiculous because Cook’s Karen is not at all what the internet knows Karen to be. Cook’s interpretation is imaginative, while the rest of the world has a real grasp on who these fictional Karens are.

Reappropriation can be seen in the above examples, and how the meme is changed to fit other stereotypes for ‘cooler’ women and equally discriminatory men. New and old memes of the same subject tend to blur together. Calling someone a Karen due to their racism is just the same as calling someone a Karen for not following COVID-19 restrictions, and due to the popular circulation of both modes at the same time (due to the Black Lives Matter movement gaining traction and the COVID-19 pandemic,) no one can say which ‘type’ of Karen was there first.

Resonance, collectivism, and their spreadability are also important to mention when discussing disregarding a meme’s origin. Many people don’t have any connection to Cook, even beloved stand-up comedy lovers like myself, don’t know who he is or even that he was one of the first people to properly coin the use of the word ‘Karen,’ in a memetic context. What individuals connect Karen to now are the videos that circulate on TikTok of white women acting hysterical over the tiniest things, like being asked to put on a mask, having a person of color blocking their car in, and other tiny situations that would never deserve such a strong physical reaction.

The important thing to remember about collectivism is that it is highly dependent on individual expression and relies on social experience. Different social media sites have different norms, as do different social circles. Most individuals do not experience the Karen meme through the lens of Dane Cook, they experience it through the reappropriation and transformation of the meme. It’s more likely for an individual to see a video titled ‘Karen Goes Crazy at a Supermarket,” versus Cook’s comedy routine, especially because there’s been discussion about stand-up comedy dying due to platforms such as TikTok and how short-form video formats are decreasing attention spans along with increasing the use of. The spread and circulation of memes through mass online networks contribute to and come across the same factors as collectivism. People spread spreadable content, but that does not make all content spreadable.

In Dawkins’s original meaning of a meme, he explains in simple terms that an ‘internet meme’ is simply a ‘recreation’ of an original idea that can then be changed by ‘human creativity.’ Dawkins’ meaning of what a meme is has vastly changed over time, although the meaning appropriated by the internet is not too far off the original. Part of the reason that the Karen meme is entertaining and popular is that everyone has encountered a Karen or Karen-like figure before the exact phenomenon was named. People were able to relate to what Karen represented due to their personal experiences. When Karen was given a permanent structure and visual, it made their identity more tangible.

 In an interview with ET Canada, Dane Cook was asked about ‘who created Karen.’ Cook said that while he does take some credit for the origin, he said that his Karen joke was not necessarily what ‘we see today,’ regarding the meme. To him, the name was associated with people who were ‘off-putting,’ but never saw it in the context of today’s social climate.

A modern connection can also go to the 2004 film Mean Girls, where a character named Karen asks, “so if you’re from Africa, why are you white,” and the response is “oh my God Karen, you can’t just ask people why they’re white.” Even though Cook would be the most likely person to be given ‘credit,’ many connect the name to the Mean Girls character due to the popularity of the film. Some more modern references to the Karen meme can come from the 2016 “Antisocial Karen” Nintendo Meme and an SNL Karen skit from 2018.

The humor stems from discordance, from the original message being taken out of context and turned into something else entirely. Memes are made to be a cultural transmission. An important rule of thumb is what can be copied will be copied and so on, but what makes memes worth transforming is their meaning, and as seen before, meanings can be adjusted or changed completely.

As memes are shared, they throw away the original context of creation and authorship. When authorship is taken away, along with the original intention, memes become the property of popular social and online culture. Memes tend to take on a life of their own, which is why some can then become hate symbols, such as the Pepe meme. They have evolved from harmless entertainment to having a real impact on society.

The current political climate has also drastically changed what we consider to be a ‘Karen.’ Dane Cook referenced this in his interview that the reason he only takes some credit was due to how Karen became such a symbol to call out racist white women. Especially in 2020 when the Karen meme has become a popular symbol to challenge the racially charged climate and debate over human rights. In 2020, the national conversation of the Black Lives Matter movement changed what many people meant by calling someone a Karen. As protests raged on, so did the evolution of who Karen was and the association the word now has with white supremacy and racism. Even in 2023, this meaning of Karen is still the most relevant one.

The Karen meme has shifted from its original use, poking fun at the unlikable person in each friend group, and has become categorized as a whole subculture of mainly white women. Even if the origin could be successfully tied down, it would be pointless since the original Karen joke and the Karen mean we know today are two completely different entities. Even mainstream articles who write about this particular meme state that the origin is unknown and while that is not necessarily true, it’s also not untrue. Many don’t know the origin or think it’s relative because of how the Karen meme has evolved. Why would anyone search for the origin of an image or video when it would give no clarity or context to how we see images and videos in today’s world?

1st Reading 

The words “the road not taken,” are a famous phrase. The beginning of the poem always sticks out to me for that reason. The overall meaning of the poem is very clear and concrete to me, how Robert Frost is faced with two different paths in front of him and he chose to take the more difficult, unfamiliar one to him. And in the end, he doesn’t regret it. Frost’s use of language and imagery stands out to me, especially when he writes phrases such as “because it was grassy and wanted wear,” and “in leaves, no step had trodden black,” that project this type of elegance that poets strive for. The overall meaning is to not let a difficult journey stop you from reaching your goals, and Frost hammers that point home in the very last stanza of the poem.

2nd Reading 

• this time I could see the poem more visually due to just having watched the Ted-Ed video. But instead of just having a set scenery, my imagination went beyond just seeing a road in the woods. I had the previous video in my mind and saw the ‘roads’ as two doors in a house, two paths on a street, etc.
• After reading it for a second time, the original meaning seemed to grow for me. I was able to see in my mind what would happen if I actually took ‘the road less traveled.’
• Again, Frost does a good job at using very descriptive language, but it was as if the video helped stemmed and grow what Frost had already written.
• I think visual stiction is a very real thing, and the video made me excited to see how I would intercept it after hearing the song.

3rd Reading 

• After reading the poem for a third time directly after hearing Jacob Collier perform it as a song, it was impossible for me not to read it in the same tune. I think I did it unintentionally but realized by the end that I was reading it as Collier performed it. Earworms and I have a love-hate relationship.
• While the video provided more of a visual stimulation to the imagery that was already presented by frost, the song seemed to do something different entirely. The beats in between the verses and the different frames really served such a unique purpose the third time around.
• After some time though, Collier’s voice started to get annoying, and after reading it for a third time in the same tune, I was about done with the poem and had truly gotten annoyed with it. 

4th Reading 

• The storyboard was honestly how I sort of envisioned Frost’s poem in the first place. I think that’s partial because I’ve had to analyze this poem in school and attached a very cartooned version of it in my head.
• Reading the poem after looking at the storyboard helped me break the story down into parts in my head. Unlike the video after the second reading, it wasn’t as visually interesting but reminded me of how I would have broken this poem down in middle school or high school. 
• The text captions had broken down the poem in a very straightforward, academic way. 

5th Reading 

• It’s so interesting to see the retrospective different interruptions of ’two raids diverged’ because a lot of what was seen was literal interruptions, and this one took a much more modern look.
• David Orr’s text really put the poem into a broader perceptive, especially by saying how it’s a part of ‘American culture,’ and implying that it’s not heavily a part of their cultures outside the US. How the poem in the commercial was used with the sense the audience would KNOW where the poem was from but that’s not entirely always the case due to people’s different cultural and social experiences. 
• It is wild to think about how widespread this poem was and still is. Especially from what I said in my first response about how there are some very iconic lines in the poem. Especially the mix-up in titles from ‘the road not taken to ‘the road less traveled’ DUE to the popularity of the less traveled line. 

Last Reading

My view of the poem from when I first read it versus now has changed drastically. What really cemented those changes were the Ted-Ed video and the David Orr articles. Which helped me critically analyze the poem through a new lens. I had interpreted the poem as many have, that the one considered to be ‘less traveled’ is the one that will be the most emotionally gratifying. But with Orr’s article in mind, I don’t necessarily think that’s true. It’s also good to consider that if the original meaning was intended to be closer to Orr’s, then the shift must have happened somewhere along the line culturally and socially and has stayed that way. While before I read it as Frost writing about taking a more changeling road but being happy with the results, I see it more interchangeable and individually, that the two roads truly depend on the speaker and what they consider difficult. The Ted-Ed video helped me visualize the poem even more than I had been, it put the images to words, which is always helpful. I have a very big imagination and that’s on of the reasons why the video stuck with me for as long as it has. I also never really considered Frost’s audience before, but I don’t it would be a bunch of middle schoolers, which is another reason to consider how the poem had gotten such a simplified meaning to the original. 

Admittedly, as someone who has seen the term used online, I had no clue of its origin. Many agree that the term Karen seems to derive from one of Dane Cook’s comedy routines, ‘The Friend Nobody Likes,’ but a modern connection is found in the film Mean Girls, as a character named Karen asks “so if you’re from Africa, why are you white,” and the response is the iconic line “oh my God Karen, you can’t just ask people why they’re white.”

For this response, I will be using Shiftman’s because of the consideration of internet memes. To be considered a meme, the ‘digital item’ needs to have common content/form/stance that were created in cognizance and circulated/imitated/transformed by the internet. Jenkins describes a mode as a collected and emergent ‘phenomenon,’ expressing a concomitant idea rather than preceding.

I think the term Karen was a mode and then circulated into a meme. Before it was monopolized online, Karen was more of a contemporary idea. Many had shifting views of what ‘consists’ as a Karen, ranging from looks, actions, and ideologies. People would call almost any middle-aged woman who was acting out of hysteria a Karen. As the term circulated more online, Karen started to gain very prominent characteristics. You had to be middle-aged, a woman and white-while not limited to what makes a Karen, they were the most prominent. Karen also often acted very ridiculously over the smallest thing and was seen being racist, homophobic, and or outright bigoted. While looks play only a small part, many refer to people as Karens who have a certain haircut. On TikTok, there are videos of people baiting middle-aged white women into acting like so-called Karen. There are also skits acting out people’s own experiences with Karens. This is why I believe that the term Karen has shifted from a mode to a meme because of how the term has spread and transformed online and there being concrete characteristics to what makes a Karen. 

If we started to see Karen from the perspective of a mode instead of a meme, I don’t think it would make it easier to defend ethically. Due to the characteristics and how widespread the term is, it would be hard to again see the term as a mode and nterprete it as a phenomenon. Interpretation leads to too much wiggle room. If we started to see Karen as a mode, it would inspire specifically white people to call anyone a Karen and that could extend to people of color. If this were to happen it would successfully shift who we saw as a Karen. 

It is something to consider that over-emotional females are readily coined a term ( not necessarily A Karen but are often called out on their emotional state) while men who act worse aren’t. However, it is important to note that men are called out on their behavior especially online. I have seen memes on Tumblr saying “when a woman gets rejected she complains to her friends but when a man gets rejected he kills the woman.” I think my answer would be different if I didn’t regularly think that men are getting called out on their behavior. I think the turbulent state we see in those we call Karens often comes from a place of the privilege of never being called out on behavior and being able to get away with their bigotry. I know women who have acted very emotionally, I have acted very emotionally but never to a point where I am harassing someone, knocking down things on counters because I’m not being served, etc. I also think that specifically white women will do anything to try to be in a minority situation and when looking into these alleged sexism and ageism complaints we need to look into who is making them and who is backing them up. There is something about white women, especially older white women who will do almost anything to experience being in the ‘minority’ due to their entitlement.

In my everyday life, I tend to use emojis and all caps the most. I love texting with emojis, and now Apple has these things called ‘memojis’ which is basically an emoji avatar you can design to look like you. They are perfect for when I either don’t have words for a response but feel like I have to respond and when I am going nonverbal and feel like I can’t talk or text. I also use all caps at least once a day. I don’t talk to everyone I’m friends with or my family every day, but the one person I do talk to is my best friend Lexie and our lives are so crazy that we always find a way to use caps. There is no normal day for us. Gifs and memes I don’t use them often, but I do use them. Honestly, my sibling uses them a lot more than me and will literally not respond to my texts with words but instead uses memes. I once asked if they were in the hospital, and they sent me a meme of a cat rolling on the ground. I also use slang words a lot such as ‘FR’ (for real,) ‘BFFR’ (be effing for real) ‘Slay,’ and other well-known slang words. Throughout translation, I found that emojis were one of the most useful tools to help me. It’s because emojis are a replacement for words but in a different way than GIFS. Emojis are very simple, unlike GIFS, and allow the image to speak for itself the same emoji could be used to mean different things depending on the context while GIFS are a bit more straightforward.

Honestly, this was the funniest assignment I ever had for a writing class. I really didn’t find anything to be difficult, and maybe that would change if I translated more of the text, but it was so fun to do! It flowed so easily, and I didn’t have to stop and think about it. I had the text and my google doc side by side and the translations came so easily to me. It was like I had done this before and knew exactly what to say. And, I haven’t read Kurt Vonnegut since high school, so it wasn’t a recent text I had or was extremely familiar with. I’m not even a huge Vonnegut fan and am very critical of his stuff and while he’s written masterpieces, there are a lot of aspects I don’t like. So, it wasn’t even a novel that I enjoyed or enjoyed. But I got SO into it that I almost caved and reread the novel. It made me interested again. I don’t think there was anything I couldn’t translate or that got ‘lost.’. But it is a different vibe than the original novel. And like anything that involves slang and texting language, there might be some stuff that confuses one person but doesn’t confuse another and vice versa just because everyone is on different parts of the internet and has different cultural experiences online.

The translated version improves the original text in one way: HUMOR. Slaughterhouse-Five is funny in a sarcastic, paradoxical sense of humor way while my translation was more outright funny. My version was funnier in a modern humor way, that involves a lot more online cultural references. It introduces the concept of simplicity because I defiantly simplified my translation to make it more understandable and readable. My favorite part to translate was ALL OF IT but I was proud of translating it goes’ into ‘it be like that,’ the most.

Hold up:

Bill Pilgrim is seriously NOT with the times.

He goes to bed sad about his dead wife 👰🏼and wakes up getting’ married again 🙄. He just keeps walkin’ in and out all these doors. Yikes, seen his birth, GROSS 🤢 and death, WOW. Outta touch and outta time FR.

He just be talking.

NAAAHHH because he really don’t know where he’s going. This is NOT FUN ❌. It’s like he’s an actor on one of those time-traveling TV shows, like Outlander.

This man was born in 1922, old head 👴🏻, in Ilium NY. His dad was a barber ✂️. He got no sibs. He looked like this: 🥸🦒🥤. High school grad to the military pipeline. His dad died in a hunting accident in the war.

Rip 🪦.

It be like that 🤷.

HE’S A WAR PRISONER???

ANNNYYWAAAYYYSSS……..this man was discharged from the army and enrolled in college but he got engaged his senior year and suffered a nervous breakdown 😰.

Damn, son.

This man is just like Sylvia Plath because he got some shock therapy goin’ on. BUT he married his fiancée 💏, finished college 🎓 and become an eye Dr 👨‍⚕️.

💰💰💸💸🤑🤑💵💵.

He had two kids. 👧👦. Barbara and Robert.

YOOOOOO!!! In 1968 Billy went on a plane 🛫with a bunch of other eye Drs to go to an eye Dr convention BUT it crashed! EVERYONE DIED. BUT BILLY! It be like that 🤷.

🤫🤕👩🧹.

Billy got on the radio and talked bout time travel. He said he was kidnapped by 👽🛸. The 🛸 were from this planet called Tralfamadore. This looonnngggggg name. These guys had him NAKED in a ZOO. 😱.

Barb went with her man to bring her dad home. He kept going on about his 🛸 experience and Barb really wanted him to be BFFR.

Billy wrote a letter to the newspaper about the 🛸.

📝:

The 🛸were 2 feet 📏, 🟩, and looked like a plumber ​​🪠. They were suppperrr flexible and had eyes on their palms. Saw in 4K. Timekeepers FR.

Billy wrote a second letter ✋.

📝:

He said that people don’t really die on the 🛸 planet. They are aliveish. Past, present, and future is ONE. The 🛸 can just hop from moment to moment. When an 🛸 sees a dead body they say, “It be like that 🤷.” And keep goin’ on.

Billy was in the basement all alone 😔. He wrote this on this old typewriter. Ratio.

Billy was ballin’ he had no heat and was dressed POORLY. He had his dogs out and they were BLUE.

His heart was going craazzyy with the beats. He was warm because he was gonna tell people the truth about time ⌛. Barb was worried and let herself in. She said sum “dad, where you at,” and keep goin’ on.

Billy aint say a sound and she thought was gonna find his dead body 🧛.

“Yo, why you ghosting me?” She had the published letter in her hand. SCARY BARB.

“I aint hear you.”

Barb was only 21 and thought her dad was crazzyy because of brain damage. Girl had to manage her own mother’s funeral ⚰️ and look after her dad’s business 👩‍💼. And have her dad talk crazy to her.

Trynna save the lost souls on earth FR.