« The right direction: Coleman Hughes and the case for black optimism | Main | Time for "they": Benjamin Dreyer on the word of the year »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Britany Mandujano

1. In Martin Scorsese’s essay, he mentions his own viewpoints versus others, based on his claim that marvel movies “aren’t cinema”. At the beginning of Martin Scorsese’s essay, he says that “I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me… and in the end, I don't think they're cinema”. He was just stating his answer by then expressing his feelings. Some people may take what Martin Scorsese said as “hatred for Marvel” but then Martin explains how there is nothing he can do for people's negative assumptions created on his answer. Martin explains how even though some may say that anyone can watch anything on television for example on Netflix, iTunes, and Hulu. Scorsese argues that despite this being true filmmakers intended for their films created to be shown on the big screen.
2. When Scorsese argues how in the past the Hollywood film industry was dependent on “productive tension” but today, as he claims that the “tension is gone”. Nowadays movies are simply entertainment, not an art form. By this he means that in the past the film industry was more advanced in important aspects as in the form of selling, it was also focused on art as well as the practical financial pressures of running a business whereas now it is purely about entertainment. I agree with this because almost all people who go to the theater only want something to fill their free time with entertainment, they do not see it as an art form. Scorsese’s theory of the movie industry being changed for the worst is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problems of new filmmakers as well as old ones these people are placed in a terrible position because of how the industry is functioning now. It is difficult for anyone starting off or who is already well known to have their movies shown on the big screen. Within my experience, most movies I watch are for entertainment, not because of the art behind the film created, so the movie industry obviously shows movies as in Marvel movies for that purpose.
3. Scorsese believes that Netflix and Hulu showing artistic films that may not be profitable enough for the big screen is a good thing. He believes this because it is a new form for people to view films that are artistic in multiple ways in spite of them not being able to be shown in theaters. Even though Scorsese believes this is a good thing he also wishes that cinema would show more artistic moves for longer periods of time. The benefits of streaming films mean the films are out there for anyone to stream at any given time. The drawbacks of streaming would be the hope that more rising filmmakers may not have a chance to show their films on the big screen. Streaming companies affect which films are created by having them approved from those streaming them which means if they do not approve certain things in the film they have the right to not stream or include certain parts of a film. The films shown are usually shown to those of age or of age to view a certain rated movie, although most of the time anyone can view any film that can be streamed. The larger movie industry is mostly crowded with franchise pictures.
4. Scorsese addresses the question of “So what?” and “Who cares?” to support his argument. In Scorsese essay he says that filmmakers are the “Who cares?” because it is mentioned several times that filmmakers design films for the purpose of them to be shown on the big screen not only to be streamed. Filmmakers are the ones connected to the claim made by Scorsese in his essay. Scorsese answers the “So what?” question by responding to some people who may say that it is “supply and demand” for what is shown in theaters is an argumentative statement because he says “If people are given only one kind of thing, of course, they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing” it fundamentally works both ways, this represents how the Hollywood movie industry has been dominated by franchise pictures and the industry itself is at fault. Scorsese did not convince me that his argument matters beyond the limited audience of filmmakers because essentially his arguments are oriented towards how filmmakers will struggle because of the movie industry's changes. Scorsese's essay lacks evidence based on how his argument is more than just an issue for filmmakers.

Rani Hameid

1. At the beginning of his essay,” Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain,” Martin Scorsese claims that Marvel movies are not cinema and are “closer to theme parks” than movies. Other people view this as “hatred of Marvel. He shuts down their argument by stating that he has “known and loved them throughout my life” but still doesn’t believe they are cinema. Scorsese believes cinema is an art form like literature, music, or dance. He argues that Marvel is not cinema because of the lack of “revelation, mystery, or genuine emotional danger.”

2. Scorsese claims that the “productive tension” between artistic vision and financial pressure of business is now gone. This results in movies that are solely entertainment, not art. An example he uses to prove this claim includes his argument on Marvel movies. He states that “They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit,” explaining that these superhero films are all unmodified versions of each other, only made for a profit and to entertain. I believe that Scorsese is correct, mainly because today, no one watches a modern film to appreciate the artwork, they simply are there to pass their time in an entertaining way.

3. Scorsese believes that streaming services showing the “artistic” films is primarily a good thing as franchise films are the primary choice to watch on the big screen. Many filmmakers still want a film for the big screen though, and despite Scorsese believing this is a good thing, he states that he would prefer if artistic films played on the big screen for longer periods of time.

4. Scorsese states that the filmmakers are the “Who cares?” because they design the films in order to attempt to make it past streaming and onto the big screen, which can result in some filmmakers to lose the artistic side of filmmaking. He answers the “So what?” through explaining that the big screen is not simply a matter of “supply and demand,” but a “chicken-and-egg issue.” because, “If people are given only one kind of thing, of course, they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.” If people are given a variety of films they will grow to want more variety in the industry. Scorsese did not convince me that this argument matters beyond the limited audience. Although I do agree that films are less artistic, the general public still does not seem to care. Franchises will continue to dominate the industry because that is what people want. Scorsese also does not seem to supply much evidence beyond personal opinion, which harms his credibility in my eyes.

Chaston Pierce

1.)At the beginning of the post Scorsese states " I don't think there cinema" in regards to Marvel movies. pertaining to this statement Scorsese admits that at first glance this sentence may sound a little harsh. Also saying that many people confront him about this saying it is "insulting, or evidence of hatred for Marvel ". Scorsese then explains the reasoning behind his statement is Marvel movies lose the complexity, aesthetic, also the emotional and spiritual revelation that he considers cinema. Scorsese adds to this statement by explaining that "cinema is an art form just as music or dance." Furthermore Scorsese proves that he does not have a "hatred for marvel" by saying "I’ve known and loved them throughout my life."
2.)Scorsese argues that the "productive tension" between artistic vision and the pressures of running a business have dwindled and now movies are just for entertainment. Scorsese believes that just like music and dance cinema is an art form. He states " tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension" meaning that this tension was good for the art and production of the movies and there profits. Scorsese goes as far as saying that this tension " gave us some of the greatest films ever ". Now that this tension is disappearing the movie industry is being split and no longer compatible. Scorsese claims "sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema" and that it is no longer one cohesive process.
3.)Scorsese has very conflicting feelings about the livestreaming industry of movies. On one hand Scorsese is overjoyed that streaming services like Netflix and Hulu are giving cinematic artist the opportunities to express there passion and skills through movies that will be shown on mainstream sites. While on the other hand these works of art won't be seen on the big screen in a movie theater which by Scorsese standards are where these movies are supposed to be shown. Scorsese proves this point by saying "anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen."
4.)Scorsese successfully attacks the "so what?" and the "who cares?" issue. This is done by convincing the intended audience that they have not only been missing out on the true experience of cinema, but also have been lulled into an ongoing train of " vetted, modified, revetted and remodified movies." Another way Scorsese shuts down the "Who cares?" question is by saying that people don't know they want the true cinema experience. Scorsese calls this the "chicken-and-egg issue" he explains this problem by stating "If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing. " This proves that if artistic cinema was mainstreamed into movie theaters people would care about the shift in true cinematic viewing experiences.

Kirkland Kessler

1. At the start of Scorsese's essay, he states that Marvel movies "aren't cinema" and gives his reasoning on why he believes that. Many Marvel fans have commented on Scorsese's opinions saying it was "insulting" and seen as "evidence of hatred for Marvel". However, Scorsese comes back saying that Marvel movies are "not for me" knowing that others have a different opinion. Martin Scorsese claims that film should be "an art form" and is "equal to literature or music or dance". Films need more individual artistry instead of making remakes or turning a franchise into a movie.
2. In the article, Scorsese claims that the "productive tension" in films has decreased over time and now films are made merely for entertainment. He is telling everyone that each film back then was a piece of art, but now the film industry is a way for a business to make money and entertain the people. People now will go to the cinema to see a movie that has comedy, romance, action or something else that entertains them and will go in order to pass the time. In my experience of watching a film or going to the cinema, I will watch a movie to pass time or have in the background while I am doing something else. I never realized what the movie is trying to teach or the visuals in it. I usually watch movies in order to be entertained when I have nothing else to do.
3. Scorsese sees streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu as a good thing, because it shows more independent “artistic” films that are not profitable enough for the big screen. The benefit of having these streaming services is that people are able to watch a more artistic film whenever and wherever they want instead of going to the cinema to watch a movie based more for entertainment. The drawbacks of streaming films are the little recognition a film could get because of it lacking the certain style that is tending during that time. Streaming services also affect which films are being made in order to keep their customers happy and keep putting out what they enjoy. If a film is not doing well or does not meet the companies standards than they are able to remove it from their service.
4. Scorsese acknowledges the “So what?” And “Who cares?” in his argument. He states that the “Who cares?” are the filmmakers who take their time to create a film, hoping that it will be able to be played on the big screen or at least streamed on a streaming service. Scorsese answers the “So what?” by saying the people are only being given one thing and “of course they’re going to want more of that one thing,'' thus stating that people should experiment and branch off from that one thing and try something different. Scorsese convinced me that his argument stretches beyond filmmakers because he gives evidence of how films were like when he was young instead of how they are now.

Aly Kashin

3. Scorsese believes that streaming services showing those lower budget, artistic, or just not as easily consumable films as those being shown on the big screen is a positive thing. Those films still hold value albeit maybe not to all moviegoers, but those watching them on Netflix and Hulu don’t care about the profit they bring in. Scorsese believes in these films and the way they are displayed because it’s something new being brought to the scene instead of letting them possibly not pull in a large profit through traditional movie sales. On the other hand, he still wishes these more artistic films could reach the wide audience of traditional moviegoers and he wants cinema to expose people to more artistic films and have them play for more than a couple nights, essentially he would like it if those underdog movies got their time to shine as well. The benefits of streaming are vast though, anyone can stream a movie at any time and play it however many times without paying extra although the drawbacks are that lots of filmmakers choose this route instead of big screen pursuit. Streaming companies obviously hold all the power when these movies are shown through their domain, they can choose the age restrictions or if a film doesn’t align with their views- they have the right to not host that film on their platform. The large movie industry operates by gathering sales with exciting upcoming movies that you, your friends, and family can go see and usually it is a much bigger event than staying home, laying on the couch, and watching Netflix/Hulu. I would have to agree with a lot of what Scorsese has to say, although I am a huge fan of cinema I think it is time to give those smaller films a chance.

Daminica Wells

In the article “Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren't Cinema. Let Me Explain”, Martin Scorsese defends his argument that Marvel movies are not Cinema. Scorsese labels the popular franchise as a kids theme park instead of a movie. Growing up in a different time period, Scorsese isn’t fascinated with superhero movies. He doesn’t think they are authentic like the movies of his time. The filmmakers he has taken an interest in made movies that evoked an emotional and spiritual revelation. He values the complexity of the characters and paradoxes in their nature and he believes Marvel doesn’t have those elements. Movies of today, as Scorsese claims are made to “satisfy a specific set of demands”, they don’t evoke mystery or a sense of danger like the movies of the past. These are the movies that are being put in theaters, not movies that are different, only franchises and it saddens Scorsese. Considering it is every filmmakers’ dream to make it on the big screen but they have been cast aside to streaming sites like Netflix and Hulu.

1) In the beginning of his essay,“Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren't Cinema. Let Me Explain”, Scorsese distinguishes the difference in his claim and what the media ran with. He claimed that in his opinion Marvel superhero movies were not real cinema in his statement “I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema”. He didn’t dismiss the popular franchise and he addresses this. He says the media took that part of his opinion and assumed that he hated Marvel and wanted to insult them.

2) Scorsese argues that “productive tension” between artists in Old Hollywood is what garnered the films the title of true cinema. Scorsese denotes the movies that are being produced now as pure entertainment, because they lack things like “productive tension”. Productive tension in his distinction is what made films intense and more enjoyable. Artists were putting their hearts and souls into movies unlike today, because of the lack of tension. I agree and disagree with his distinction between them. Films from old Hollywood were new. They were just starting out and hadn’t gained as much adoration as the films of today have. Today’s films have already been through the beginning phase and now they have so much steam and adoration that they continue doing what they do best. Also the films that Scorsese mentions were books that sometimes had sequels, while Marvel superhero films come from a long list of comic books with many issues.

3) Scorsese is annoyed by the shift of big franchise films occupying the theaters and small independent films being forced to stream on sites like Netflix and Hulu. He says “I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters”. Even this annoys him he is still grateful for the opportunities smaller filmmakers get to showcase their artistic talents. There are a lot of benefits to streaming films on sites like Netflix. Many people would rather stay home and not go to the movies. They watch these films from the comfort of their home, but that means that the films aren’t getting ticket sales. They don’t get to profit as much as they would if they were to be released in theaters. Streaming companies control what is on their platforms and can alter them to fit their standards and age limits. By giving access to so many films on their platforms the only films left are big franchise films that go to the theaters proving the shift that Scorsese despises.

4) Scorsese addresses the “So what?” and “Who cares?” questions in his essay. Near the middle of the essay he answers the question of “Who cares?”. Scorsese identifies the filmmakers as the ones who care. They care because they take time to make films and want them to be on the big screen, but their lack of notoriety keeps them from getting spots in the theaters. Scorsese then answer the question of “So what?” with the “chicken and egg” example. He says “if people are only given only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing”. So if people keep getting one kind of thing that’s what they are accustomed to expect and what they are going to learn to love. Scorsese didn’t convince me that his argument mattered beyond filmmakers opinions. It isn’t impossible for filmmakers to get their films on the big screen, it just takes notoriety. Also streaming platforms are taking over even big franchises are on streaming platforms eventually big theaters won’t be necessary

Kristen Janosek

1. At the beginning of Martin Scorsese’s post, ” Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain,” Martin Scorsese states that although his first statement may be a little harsh, he admits that the Marvel films are not for him and are not considered. He believes that cinema movies have a certain aesthetic and complexity that Marvel films lack. He states that he doesn't absolutely “hate” Marvel but that the media took that part of his opinion and assumed that he hated Marvel and wanted to insult them. Rather he states that "I’ve known and loved them throughout my life." proving that he doesn't have this pure hatred for the films.
2. In this post, Scorsese argues that the “productive tension” in films over the years has decreased over the years. He states that the " tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension" meaning that the tension between the artists was good for their art they were producing and the profits they would make. He claims that back in the day films were created as art for people to enjoy and nowadays they are just something to pass time. I agree with his claim and that yes most of the time when I watch a film its either to just have something in the background or to entertain me when there is nothing else to do. He proves his claims by relating it to the Marvel movies. He states that like other movies, they usually have a book or even some sequels before the film. Marvel is supposed to be based on the comics written before these films but they don't exactly always match whereas back in the day artists would pour their hearts out into their piece of art.
3. Scorsese feelings towards the live streaming industry of movies are very conflicting. He feels that true works of art should be played on the big screen for longer periods of time for the sole reason that they could be enjoyed longer. On the other hand, he feels that there are a lot of drawbacks to having these films on the big screen. He states that if the work of art is not trending during the time due to a lack of a certain style that the streaming services will not continue showing the piece of art. They would most likely replace the art with something else that may be trending during the time or attracts more people.
4. Scorsese addresses the “Who cares?” in his writing is meant to represent that the only one that really cares nowadays whether a film stays in the theaters is the filmmakers. The filmmakers only care what films they can get on the big screen and which ones can make the most money for them. The only films nowadays are usually films just to entertain the human mind rather than inspire the crowd and give them an enjoyable experience. He, later on, he acknowledges that the people really don't know whether or not they want the true cinema experience. He makes a good point because people only want to see what they love and usually does not branch out to other varieties of films.

Patrick Conway

The article written by Martin Scorsese defends his opinion that Marvel Films are not true cinema. He writes about the difference between franchise films and films driven by artistic vision, claiming that today’s movie industry relies more so on a market of entertainment. Major blockbuster franchises like Marvel often go through a process of market-research and audience testing until they are revised enough to ensure loyal fans and a profit at the box office. Scorsese also makes it clear that he does not hate marvel films, but is rather indifferent towards them. He explains how production tension between the producers and visual artists/storytellers behind the film led to greater feats in the Hollywood of. Ultimately, I agree with Scorsese in that Marvel films are not true cinema but instead a form of worldwide audiovisual entertainment catering to financial gain instead of seeking a unifying vision of an individual artist.

josh E

In Martin Scorsese’s essay, he expresses his own points of view to other viewers on the base of his claim, that marvel movies are not cinema. In the first paragraph he states, “I’ve tried to watch them and that they’re not for me.” At the end he also says, “I don’t think they are cinema.” He was only expressing his feelings and emotions in his answers. I don’t think people should take his response in a way that makes him seem like he doesn’t like marvel movies.
It means in the past he used to argue how the Hollywood industry was dependent on “productive tension” but now in the present, he declares that the “tension is gone.” Scorsese feels that movies nowadays are simply just for our entertainment, it doesn’t show us any art in making and producing a film. I can somewhat agree to this because I only go to movies to hang out with friends and to be entertained. Sometimes I don’t even watch the full movie. Most movies I’ve watched are for entertainment, they don’t really focus on the art of the film.
Scorsese considers that both Netflix and Hulu that shows creative films that are not as beneficial for being displayed on the big screen in theaters is a wonderful thing. His reasoning of this is because it is a new design for the public to view these films that are creative in many different ways even though they aren’t being shown around in movie theaters. Although Scorsese considers this to be a good thing, he also prefers that cinema would display more creative moves for greater variations of time. The perks of streaming films means that these films are displayed out to the public for anyone to see at any point of time.
Scorsese discusses the question of “So what?” and “Who cares?” to uphold his argument. Scorsese, in the essay he wrote, states that the filmmakers would be the “Who cares?” based on the fact it has been brought up many times that filmmakers create films for the purpose of them to be displayed on the big screen in theaters, not only streamed. He also answers the “So what?” question by acknowledging a few people who might state that it is “supply demand” for what is viewed in theaters in really an argumentative allegation.

Anthony Myles

1 ~ Scorsese tackles the repudiation of his argument from the outset, with bravado and the measured tone of a master craftsman. It’s akin to a cold open from a taut narrative, Scorsese’s own Goodfellas instantly comes to mind. He attacks the matter with a Swiftian charm, as a wizened sage would dutifully consider the whims of a fanciful child, in that he should even respond to criticisms of his criticism. The entirety of his essay is an opinion, albeit a deeply qualified one, as to the nature of cinema and what that means to him. At no point did he disqualify Marvel fare as not being movies, merely not the cinema he grew up with, created, or had a desire to partake in. His case is emboldened by the inescapable fact that there is a distinct gulf of style and substance between the films and filmmakers he prefers, and what is predominantly marketed in theatres. It would appear that critics of his opinion have mistakenly inferred that he’s condemning Marvel films.

2 ~ He hints at unspoken criticisms of his preferred cinema as being an unwanted artifact, supplanted by a new breed of viewing entertainment. Films and filmmakers have noticeably become increasingly homogenized. As Scorsese notes, it’s not merely relegated to Marvel films, studios are using and creating movies as a way to print money, not create art or showcase original ideas. The issue that films are increasingly becoming a commodity is readily displayed onscreen. Actors are increasingly cast in similar roles, narrative structures are didactic clones of the tired three-act structure, color palettes and cinematography are increasingly similar and bland, in short, studios are churning out products. They have no thought toward quality or shelf-life. Disney is an easy target to demonstrate this, by their monopolization of a vast variety of intellectual properties. To put it simply, their movies have a “Disney Filter”, wherein glossy pseudo-perfectionism collides with an ultimately risk and consequence-free narrative. Objectively speaking, the new breed of Disney Star Wars films are more indicative of Scorsese’s new wave of cinema-deficit entertainment than Marvel, which is of course owned by Disney.

3 ~ Scorsese eagerly admits to utilizing these streaming platforms to create films. He is a filmmaker and they (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, et al) are viable routes to view films. Regrettably, to him, they are not (primarily) theatrical releases. He is correct in stating that a theatrical release is the ne plus ultra of filmmaking, and the universal desire of filmmakers everywhere. However, adaptation is necessary in today’s environment, pandemic withstanding, and streaming services have provided outlets for new and old filmmakers that did not exist a few years ago. At this time, it’s uncertain if this is an experimental field, does it want unique stories and storytellers, or will it eventually relent to the current studio model of films as commoditized entertainment.

4 ~ Filmmakers care about their craft and their art. Their voices matter. They are the literal craftsmen that forge unique and watchable stories from intangible imagination. Scorsese is in his right to be the canary in the coal mine, his entrenched artform is being co-opted. Whether this will prove a boon or detriment to the filmmaking industry remains the judgment of the future. Technical gloss is becoming a stronger mainstay than creative narratives. Movies, films, cinema, are all of our collective narratives as a human race. Some should be ugly, some stupid, some funny, however the last thing they should be is the same. This effects our cultural growth. If cinema becomes entirely corporate product, we have lost a valuable commentary of our times. Intelligent and creative voices are silenced. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does fascistic corporate greed. It seems a safe claim to make that few would want this apart from stockholders. At the heart of Scorsese’s argument is a distinct lack of Us vs Them. He implies that there is room for both, however an injection of classic cinematic style could only benefit many modern, theatrical films.

David Carson

1. It's addressed almost immediately, when he states frankly the same thing he said before, which is after watching a few of them he doesn't believe Marvel movies, "are Cinema." Which I even remember many people did, "take it as haters for Marvel," at the time he said it originally. I think it's important for him to call out that it isn't about hating or loving Marvel, but about how they fit into a certain definition of cinema in his eyes, making personally feelings about them inconsequential to his overall argument.

2. It's clear to see what tension he's talking about when looking at older films just from looking at what older films were. Older films like Godfather were made with a huge budget for something very long, bleak, violent, and artistically revolutionary, and perhaps that's where that tension lies. What I mean is that films weren't made for a specific audience and had factors and scenes tailor made for the general preferences that a particular she group showed, they were just made and people would see them if they wanted to. In today's standards, in Scorsese's argument, Godfather doesn't tick any particular group preferences, which begs the question of such a monumental film would be made today. Just to be clear, I think he's somewhat right, I think many films are made with safety nets in demographics in mind, as evidenced by the absolute Cascade of remakes Disney is put out in lieu of actual movies. Companies want to be safe when spending up to $200 million, which while understandable, makes everything feel samey as it tries to appeal to everyone, which not every movie should appeal to everyone.

3. Streaming services are an uncomfortable necessity for Scorsese, lamenting such a fate with his thoughts that every filmmaker wants to be on the big screen, he wants to be on the big screen. Still, any film can reside in Netflix, even the ones that aren't so called "mainstream" can stay there and that's great, but is it a cinematic experience? It depends on what's cinema to any given person, because a movie isn't any less of a movie on a TV, but perhaps less of the indented experience. That preference though has been controversial in the industry itself, the thought that if it isn't on a theater screen then it isn't a movie that should be eligible for awards, just because of how it's watched. It's undeniable that regardless of the full content Netflix may host, it has cinema by all of Scorsese's standards, and may very will be the last place to have Cinema today.

4. Towards the end of the article, Scorsese explains in further detail what cinema is and isn't, which by it's very nature is the "so what?" Cinema is an expansion of understanding, whether it's understanding what film is capable of or better understanding one aspect of human nature, of the world. Who should care should be everyone, because everyone should want to be challenged, to understand something new, cinema proper should persist as long as we are humans who are alive to witness stories, to tell them, to listen to them, and most importantly gain something from them. I'm convinced everyone should care, because everyone should remember that filmmakers are humans expressing the human experience, and that's important to listen to even if it's difficult.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan