Multimodal Profile Essay

Chris Herren

To Hell and Back

As a boy growing up in Fall River, Massachusetts, playing basketball at Durfee High School is a dream.  So many great players remembered, and their team banners hanging from the rafters.  Children and teenagers hope and pray that one day they can be a part of one of those teams that will continue the legacy of those before them.  Many times it is to follow in the footsteps of their brother, father, grandfather or even a cousin or uncle.  They want to make them proud and prove that they were someone at Durfee High School.

Chris Herren was born on September 27, 1975 in Fall River, Massachusetts.  His whole family grew up in Fall River and attended Durfee High School.  His father and grandfather played basketball at Durfee and were known around town as a good players in their time.  Herren’s brother, Michael, was also a great player at Durfee and led his team to two State Championships.  Then Chris came along and everyone knew  that he was going to be the best there ever was at Durfee.  He was going to be the one to really put Fall River and Durfee High School on the map.  Chris was a future success story, and people from Fall River would live through him and his legacy for years to come.  Chris Herren was going to change their lives through his talents on the basketball court.

As everyone expected Chris went on to score over 2,000 points in his career at Durfee  and was named a McDonald’s All American in 1994.  He was also named Massachusetts Player of the Year by the Boston Globe in 1992, 1993, and 1994, and Gatorade New England Player of the Year in 1993 and 1994.  Chris had lived up to what was expected of him and had become a local hero.  On the court, everyone knew exactly what he was capable of, but off the court there were many things that people did not know about Chris.  For years, the Durfee basketball team had a tradition of being contenders for the State Championship.  They also had a tradition of partying, drinking, and doing drugs after their victories.  This became the norm for these young men and they just saw it as tradition and having fun.  However, they did not realize how this could affect them and perhaps their local “hero.”

As Chris was approaching graduation it was time for him to make a decision where he was going to college to continue his basketball career.  He had offers from powerhouses such as Duke and Kentucky but he turned them down to play for his local Boston College.  Everyone thought this was great because he would be close to home and everyone could go watch him play.  However, being close to home would end up being something that would haunt Chris for the rest of his career.

Chris playing at Fresno State

Chris admits that he began drinking and smoking marijuana at the age of fifteen.  He also admits that the first time he used cocaine was within his first couple of weeks at Boston College.  This led to him failing a drug test prior to his first game at Boston College and then failing two more tests within the next two months.  He was kicked off of the basketball team and out of the university because of this and attended Fresno State the following year.  He made his debut at Fresno State in 1996 and instantly became the star and a fan favorite.  However, one year later he failed another drug test and was sent to a rehabilitation center.  Claiming he had recovered, Chris returned to the team and went on to finish his college career at Fresno State.

Now finished with college, Chris entered the NBA draft and was hoping to be selected in the first round.  Fall River was on edge anticipating him being drafted and making to the NBA.  He was finally selected by the Denver Nuggets at the end of the first round and Fall River erupted.  They had a town party and Chris came to give a speech.  Everyone was overwhelmed that Chris had finally made it and became what they had all anticipated.  Chris played very well his first year in Denver and his career looked promising, as well as his sobriety.  Then a trade took place that would change his life forever.  He had been traded to favorite childhood team, the Boston Celtics.  Once again, Chris would get the opportunity to play at home and be close to his family and friends.

Chris playing for the Boston Celtics

Within weeks of being traded to the Celtics, Chris was introduced to Oxycontin by one of his long-time friends and everything slipped away.  He had become addicted and his life became about getting high instead of basketball and his family.  Chris played one year for the Celtics and was eventually released.  He went and played overseas for years where he was introduced to heroin and became addicted to that.  His life had fallen apart and he eventually lost all his money and his basketball career.  Chris was arrested several times over the next couple of years and was even pronounced dead for thirty seconds from an overdose of heroin.  With a wife, two children, and a third on the way he finally decided to get sober and went to rehab for the final time.  He successfully finished rehab and has been sober since August 1, 2008.

All the dreams that Chris and Fall River had were gone and basketball was a thing of the past.  He was no longer a hero, but just some guy who had it all and let it slip away in the blink of an eye.  Chris would always be remembered as the drug addict who let everyone down and crushed Fall River’s aspirations for basketball greatness.  He could move and go hide from everyone and everything that reminded him of his past.  He could leave it all behind him and forget who he used to be.  But he didn’t.  Chris Herren has gone on to help others and make them aware of the obstacles people must face in every day life.  Whether, it is a promising Division I athlete or a junkie in prison he has spoken to them all.  He has told his story over and over again because he believes if it can just change one person’s life for the better than he has made a difference.  Everyone said he was destined for greatness and that he would change people’s lives, but they never thought it be like this.

Sean Smith’s “Johnny Depp: Unlikely Superstar”

Sean Smith brings light to who Johnny Depp really is, and his bumpy journey to the spotlight, in this profile. He conducts and includes an interview which allows the reader to obtain the “unlikely superstars” real words. This makes the profile valid and truthful because for the reader because it is firsthand information. Things in the interview, such as him rolling a cigarette on his knee and having gold teeth really help Smith present his point that Depp is just a normal guy.
Smith wants the reader to know that Depp may be famous and in the spotlight all the time, but he truly seeks to just be an average guy who plays a Pirate in movies. Depp does not try to please anyone or fall into the mold of most other Hollywood actors. He just wants to be himself and do things his way, according to his agenda. Smith writes, “No one in Hollywood, it’s fair to say, has worked harder at not being a movie star than Depp has, and yet he has evolved into one of the most adored actors of his generation not in spite of that persistence but because of it” (860). This shows that Depp never really wanted all the attention and fame, and did everything he could to avoid it. However, this is what ended up making him so successful, and it turned him into this iconic figure.

Alex Williams’ “Drawn to a Larger Scale”

Alex Williams depicts a portrait of a young man, named Scott Campbell, who endured a unique journey to success as a tattoo artist. Williams paints a picture of this “dirty kid” from the Louisiana bayou who has now made it to the big time in a big city. At first, you see a young man with tattoos and rough lifestyle trying to find his place in life. Then all of a sudden this guy is in the spotlight and tattooing famous people for thousands of dollars. Williams makes that transformation in your mind, and you can see Scott Campbell and his journey.
Williams shows that someone’s appearance and first judgment may not always be the correct one. This leads in to the fact that Campbell is not just a tattoo artist but is a mixed-media artist who sells out art gallery shows in New York and Miami. You do not have to fit a certain mold to become a famous artist and it does not matter what your background or where you came from. All that matters is that you have the skill and desire to become something great. I feel as if this is the message that Williams is trying to share with the reader through Scott Campbell’s life and experiences. Williams proves this point in the opening sentence when he writes, “How did a 32-year-old dropout from the bayou of Louisiana, with no formal training in art — well, to be frank, no training at all — end up with a one man show in a New York gallery…” (863). Here he shows that no matter what hand you were dealt you can turn it into something great and something that you love.

Amy Goldwasser’s “What’s the Matter With Kids Today”

Amy Goldwasser presents the idea that the Internet and computers are more educational than people might think. She gives insight to the reader when she talks about how teenagers read and write everyday, but it may not be from a book or on a piece of paper. Goldwasser writes, “When the world worked in hard copy, no parent or teacher ever begrudged teenagers who disappeared into their rooms to write letters to friends — or a movie review, or an editorial for the school paper on the first president they’ll vote for” (667). This sentence really backs up her idea that teenagers continue to read and write each day, but they now do it in a different way. However, people tend to put down the way teenagers read and write today because it is on a computer and not hard copy like it used to be.
Goldwasser writes, “That’s not to say some of the survey findings aren’t disturbing. It’s crushing to hear that one in four teens could not identify Adolf Hitler’s role in world history, for instance” (668). At first, this seems as if she is disproving her theory, but then she goes on to talk about the reasons why teenagers do not know information like this. She writes, “But it’s not because teenagers were online that they missed this. Had a parent introduced 20 minutes of researching the Holocaust to one month of their teen’s Internet life, or a teacher assigned The Diary of Anne Frank…” (668). Here she rebuts what she has previously said to make her argument even stronger and hook the reader on her theory.

“The Rise of iPads in the Classroom” by Sarah Watson

Sarah Watson clearly shows that she has done a lot of research on iPads and their use in the classroom. She presents her idea that iPads can be very effective when it comes to teaching student with disabilities. Watson makes her point clear when she writes, “The iPad is the most recent advancement in assistive technology in Special Education classrooms” (58). Then she backs up her point with relevant information from outside sources. Watson writes, “Terence Cavanaugh states in Assistive Technology and Inclusion that it (iPad) has ‘the capacity for increasing student interdependence, increasing participation in classroom activities and simultaneously advancing academic standing for students with special needs’ (4). ” (57). This makes me believe in her thoughts and gives her essay validity.
I believe that another a very important part of this essay is that she went to a school to see how this all works for herself. The fact that she took the time to go to an Elementary School and see how assistive technology really works shows that she takes this topic very seriously. It also shows and proves that information in this essay is factual because she took the notion to go and get firsthand information from a “real life” source. It is hard to argue with Watson’s point because she does such a great job of presenting her idea, showing another point of view, and finally distinguishing her side and making a valid point.

“Holistic Approaches to Combatting Depression” by Kelli Lovdahl

It is clear from reading Kelli Lovdahl’s “Holistic Approaches to Combatting Depression” that she is passionate about finding a correct cure for depression. She takes the stance that holistic methods are much more effective than drugs when it comes to healing depression patients. Lovdahl makes this clear when she writes, “Holistic approaches to combatting depression are the key ingredient to a person to become truly cured, from the very deepest inside parts out” (51). This statement lets the reader know exactly what her argument is and how she feels about this topic.
Lovdahl has a valid argument because it is true that most people with depression are never fully cured when they solely use drugs to try and treat their disease. She believes that people tend not to even give holistic approaches a chance or they may not know that they even exist. She writes this essay in an effort to give people insight on a different type of cure for depression which could prove to be very effective. While I would say that not all the approaches she brings up are factual and have been scientifically proven to work. There is a good chance that they may be effective and they, “can really change a person’s life for the better – one hundred percent naturally” (51).

Cultural Article Assignment

In Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” he argues that modern television can actually make you more intelligent because of its complexity. He tries to prove his point by bringing up the point of multiple threading throughout a television show. This means that there are many different little plots and action within the plot as a whole which make you think more and become smarter. I completely disagree because just thinking about different threads in the episode and making connections does not make you more intelligent as an individual, it just makes you more intelligent about the show itself. Johnson writes, “During its (television show “24”) 44 minutes– a real-time hour, minus 16 minutes for commercials–the episode connects the lives of 21 distinct characters, each with a clearly defined “story arc”, as the Hollywood jargon has it: a defined personality with motivations and obstacles and specific relationships with other characters” (278). I agree with this quote because the television show 24 does make you connect and follow a lot of characters which leads you to understanding the show, but this solely makes you understand the show better and nothing else. The show cannot truly make you smarter because it ultimately is made for entertainment and “hooking” the viewer, not making them more intelligent.

An article titled “Geo-cultural proximity, genre exposure, and cultivation” by Amir Hetsroni can back up my argument against Steven Johnson’s claim. Hetsroni’s article “Talks about how people develop a bias about the television shows they are watching. This article really focuses on crime dramas and how they are viewed and interpreted by our society. Hetsroni makes the claim that certain occupations such as police officers and lawyers are skewed on television and this makes viewers believe this is how they are in real life” (Hetsroni, 69). This claim that people develop a bias when watching television can help state my claim because if someone already has a bias before they watch a television show they are not really learning anything because their mind is already made up about certain subjects. Also, if occupations such as police officers and lawyers are falsely presented on television and then misinterpreted by viewers they are actually being misled and becoming “dumber” instead of smarter in the real world.

Dana Stevens directly argues against Steven Johnson’s ideas in her article “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box.” She makes the claim that there is no way watching television can make someone smarter because “watching TV teaches you to watch more TV” (296). Stevens is trying to say that the only thing multiple threading does is get you to keep watching the show and keep TV producers happy. The idea is to get people to watch TV and get them hooked on the show itself, not make them smarter. Steven’s also backs up the point made in Hetsroni’s article that not everything on television is made accurate and can mislead the viewer to believing things that are false in reality when she writes, “…but he breezily dismisses recent controversies about the program’s representation of Muslim terrorists or its implicit endorsement of torture…” (296). She proves that information on television shows such as 24, which Steven Johnson claims can absolutely make you smarter, is in fact false and can actually, once again, make people “dumber.”

Works Cited
Hetsroni, Amir. “Geo-Cultural Proximity, Genre Exposure, And Cultivation.” Communications: The European Journal Of Communication Research 33.1 (2008): 69-89. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

WordPress Discussion Leaders: Cody and Liam. Grant Penrod’s “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids”

“Nerds” and “Jocks”…how society perceives these “groups” and their stereotypes.

Connor: “Penrod explains how “Nearly all of the graduating seniors will remember the name and escapades of their star quarterback; nearly none of them will ever even realize that their class produced Arizona’s first national champion in Lincoln-Douglass Debate” (754). Football players are typically what jumps to someones mind when they think “cool high school kids”. They’re the ones who get all the recognition from the school, wins all the awards, and goes to the homecoming dance with the hottest girl in the school. The “nerds” are the ones who don’t have many friends and only care about studying.”

Liz M: “”He states, “The football players enjoyed the attention of an enthralled school, complete with banners, assemblies, and even video announcements in their honor, a virtual barrage of praise and downright deification”(754). Which appears true upon entering most high schools; the football, basketball, baseball, etc., stars are put on pedestals but that doesn’t necessarily mean the “nerds” are not too…And many of my schools’ star athletes were also the ones pulling all nighters for practice, APs and studying.”

Spencer: To go as far and say “Regardless of the causes of anti-intellectualism, the effects are clear and devastating; society looks down on those individuals who help it to progress, ostracizes its best and brightest.” is where I find his claim to be false. While I did come from a school where athletic achievements receive more notoriety than the academic, I also came from a school where a fair number of the athletes were highly intelligent, managing to balance varsity team status and advance placement classes. In my school, the student normally received praise for both their achievements among their peers.

Connecting personal experiences to the essay and how it influences our thoughts about the essay.

Mike: “For example, He states “…most high school students could readily name a few intelligent people with at least a degree of popularity. The point though, is that the image of intellectualism is disliked as anti-social…”(755)… I strongly agree with his statement because as a kid that plays a sport, I do not look upon kids that are smart any differently then I look at a jock. Many of my good friends do not play sports but are just very bright when it comes to school. I believe that the smart kids are not necessarily hated for being smart, but they are judged upon how social the individual is. And that is why I think the most anti-social smart people are looked upon as “nerds”.”

Liz B: “There is a stereotype surrounding those who vie for the top grades in class or spend their weekends studying rather than attending parties. I saw it in my own high school and will admit that I participated in the ostracization of those deemed “nerds.” I saw them as people who had no lives outside the hallways of school and branded them as outcasts. This kind of ridicule takes place all across America and sadly does not stop after high school.”

Ariana: “Penrod says: “the trend to dislike intellectuals stems at least in part from an inescapable perception that concern for grades…excludes the coexistence of normal social activity” (Penrod 755). What this essentially means is that among the many misconceptions of intellectuals is the idea that they are so completely absorbed in getting perfect grades, test scores, etc., that they are just nerds who have no social lives. Penrod goes on to say that this misconception leads to an “unbreakable cycle”, because many of these intellectuals are not actually able to make leaps and bounds socially due to the fact that they are often outcast from society. I personally think this is a shame. In my high school, there was pretty much equal focus set upon the sports teams and groups such as Mock Trial.”

The things we wish the author did or did not do to make his essay more convincing and valid.

Carrie: “The only thing I wish Penrod discussed would be not only smart kids are treated as outcasts but also anyone who is different. “For the sake of the smart kids, we all need to “lay off” a little” (757). The last thing teenagers need while trying to figure out life is constant torment from other teenagers. If people would just “lay off” of each other then we could all co-exist.”

Lizzie: “This essay makes the average person feel unintelligent and it gives off the vibe that Penrod thinks that everyone should be on his intellectual level. Aside from the word use, the piece also lacks evidence to give validity to the argument. There is no mention or example of a counter argument anywhere in the piece and there are really only a few specific examples to back up the argument. Over all, I feel that while this essay topic has legitimate potential, it fails to fulfill all that is could be and falls short of the desired finished product. ”

Jamie: “I felt like this article was very biased. This is strongly stated when the author says “Uneducated success extends far beyond just singers and sports stars too; even the current president of the United States presents the image of the success of nonintellectualism.” (page 756). After reading this part of the story I did not like the argument at all. I felt that statement was extremely biased. At first the argument the author was trying to make was clear, and then the article became more foggy.”

Hard work and correct choices can lead to success in the long run.

Kaylyn: “People who create jobs and become our president are those that most people who don’t like. I personally think they envy them. We are given the same opportunities and they just chose a better one. You can choose the type of education you want. Some might be better at it than others but you can always works as hard as you want to get where you want to be.”

Kendal: “Yes, there are some people that are very successful that aren’t as educated, but there are also people that are very well educated that worked hard and became successful through their hard work, which I think is more rewarding in the end. Another thing I found very interesting was the statistic that Penrod put in his article from Ethan Bronner that says “in the survey…74.9 percent of freshmen chose being well off as an essential goal while only 40.8 percent” chose “developing a philosophy” as their goal. This was interesting to me because when I think about it, I think that someone that has a philosophy, morals, and an education, will most likely end up working hard and becoming successful and in return well off.”

Joe: “The ending of the essay really brought all of his main points together. Talking about how in the end it is the intelligent people in life that can advance technology and other important things in society.”

Discussion Questions:

1) What points do you think Penrod is trying to convey about society and why?

2) Why do you think Penrod chose such a relatable topic to write about?

3) Is Penrods argument somewhat bias? Does he generalize the jocks and the nerds? Explain.

Grant Penrod’s “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids”

In this essay Grant Penrod discusses the negative image of “nerds” and why people frown upon intellectualism. He describes how a football team gets massive recognition for their accomplishments on the field, and academic teams of the same school were given little or no recognition at all for their accomplishments. Penrod writes, “Nearly all of the graduating senior will remember the name and escapades of their star quarterback; nearly none of them will ever even realize that their class produced Arizona’s first national champion in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. After all, why should they? He and his teammates were ‘just the nerds'” (754). Penrod uses this statement to back up his idea that no matter how great someone can be intellectually they will never receive any credit, nor be remembered, because it’s just being smart and that’s not socially “cool.”
While I do understand that “nerds” are not socially accepted sometimes I don’t believe it is simply because they are smart. Being smart does not automatically make you a nerd, and I believe this is the flaw in making me believe in Penrod’s essay. I guess the true question is what makes someone a “nerd?” To me, Penrod believes it is only be smart and I completely disagree. A lot of athletes are very intelligent, but they are not deemed “nerds” because there are other factors to consider when labeling someone a “nerd.” Penrod never proves that people hate people solely because they are smart which makes his essay unpersuasive.

“Watching TV Makes You Smarter” by Steven Johnson

Steven Johnson argues that while some people assume that television is harmful to viewers that it can actually make you more intelligent. He believes that television has evolved so much and has become so complex that viewers at home can benefit from watching certain shows. Johnson writes, “To make sense of an episode of 24, you have to integrate far more information than you would have a few decades ago watching a comparable show”(278). He is trying to convey that the thinking and inferences one must make to watch and understand a show like 24 are far more advanced than television shows of the past.
Johnson makes his argument by using specific examples and comparing television shows of present and past. This allows him to get his point across to the reader and really validate what he is saying. He shows charts of the active threads involved in four different television shows on page 284 to relay his message and prove his point to the reader. By doing this he combines a visual with his words and this makes his argument much more persuasive.
Johnson even writes, “Even Bad TV Is Better” (289) which lets the reader know that he believes that even the worst television shows on today are much better than those of the past. He argues that people can pull much more from television today and the simplest shows can make viewers more intelligent.