Tannen vs. Graff

After I finished reading Tannen's chapter from her book, I have to agree with her views. It's true that modern society does use language encompassing violent, battle, and war-based words to describe conflicts (even one's that aren't conflicts) in a negative tone. I myself never noticed this until she pointed it out. In my opinion, I think the reason these words are used so commonly is because of the motto, "Violence and drama sells." If you look at movies today, most are over-the-top action utilizing explosions, killing, gore/blood, and various forms of military and/or weaponry. Why do we have them? Because it sells well at the box office. Look at TV by flipping through the channels and you'll find a million (not literally) different forms of drama shows (*cough* reality TV*cough*) to watch. One of these, Jersey Shore (and I know for a fact most of my fellow classmates will roll their eyes upon hearing that name), deals with drama, partying, and brawls/fighting with no point or purpose to the show. Why is this on TV? Because people watch it and it gets high ratings (aka it makes money). To my disgust, there are other drama/reality TV shows that are just as bad, perhaps even worse, that stay on the air where other shows get canceled before finishing a couple of seasons (ex. Kyle XY ). Now, after getting 3/4 the way through Graff's "review," I stopped reading it due to the fact that all he was doing was nitpicking and bashing what Tannen said and believed in. Most of his quotes he took from Tannen's chapter he mainly scorned with no opinion or evidence to back up his reasoning. If you are going to counter somebody's views, at least back it up with a good reason why you think he/she is wrong (and providing some sort of fact or evidence helps your argument as well). And coming from a student's perspective, I would have thought better of a Professor, never mind a Dean of a University. I wonder if he got to his high position by just bashing other writers like Tannen over and over again...