Article- "Do Nike and LeBrom James reduce Maya Ang

[Ms. Knarr]

Here is the article: www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2011/03/do-nike-and-lebron-james-reduce-maya-angelous-words-to-trash-talk-and-gamesmanship/

[rosemariefreschi]

1. This article is about how Nike discredited Maya Angelou’s poem, “Still I Rise”, through their commercial involving LeBron James. The Harriet Staff expresses their concerns about how the commercial made a mockery of poetry. Nike changed the meanings of Maya Angelou’s poem to relate to basketball as LeBron tries to see if basketball should really be his career. They feel as if they ruined the poem and its meaning.
2. I feel as if the writers of this article were overreacting. The commercial is just that, a commercial. I don’t believe that Nike’s creators meant to ruin Maya’s poem put were just trying to bring about the point that LeBron could be thinking about being a poet. The authors also shouldn’t make the judgment that LeBron isn’t soulful or poetic.
3. Q1: Did Nike mean to diminish Maya’s poem?
Q2: Do you believe that this commercial diminished Maya’s poem?
Q3: Were the authors of this article being rude to LeBron when saying things as he’s not soulful or couldn’t be poetic?
Q4: Do you believe Nike purposely chose this poem by Maya Angelou or was it a random choice?

[abbyjameson]

1. This article is about a controversy over the use of Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise" in a Nike commercial featuring LeBron James. According to the Harriet Staff, Nike changed the entire meaning of Maya's poem, making it seem about basketball and LeBron's career. They believe that the Nike team made a mockery of her poem and poetry itself, and that Nike's interpretation of the poem was hurtful.
2. Poetry can be interpreted in many different ways, the Harriet team interpreted it one way, and Nike another. Poetry is designed to be interpreted different ways and I think the Harriet Staff over reacted to the use of the poem because maybe thats how LeBron interpreted it, there is no right or wrong answer in poetry. LeBron James may actaully be very poetic and Nike was trying to portray that, not mock Maya Angelou. Therefore, I think the Harriet Staff was overreacting and shouldn't jump to conclusions just because Mr.James is a basketball player.
3.(question 2 answer) I do not believe the commercial diminished Maya's poem because, like I said, poetry can be interpreted in many different ways, and that may have been nike's interpretation. Besides, perhaps LeBron was actually a fan of poetry and decided to use Maya's poem because he liked it so much. there are no solid facts saying that the poem was used as a form of mockery and they shouldn't jump to conclusions about LeBron and Nike.
(my question) What do you think Nike and LeBron James would have to say about these accusations the Harriet Staff has made?

[stephhsieh]

1.I also agree with Roe and Abby, how this article is about whether or not Nike's commercial involving LeBron James twisted and mocked Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise". The overall meaning of this article is if the Nike Company went to far and interpreted the wrong meaning of a well known poem. Harriet Staff believed that Nike went to far and mocked Maya Angelou and her poem. According to Staff, Nike made the poem seem more about basketball, than what it really means.
2. I also believe that the writer of this article went to far and overreacted to this situation. I agree with what Abby said, how there is no right or wrong in answering poetry. I believe that Staff overreacted and made it to big of a deal how Nike is comparing and using Angelou's poem compared to James. I believe that Nike is trying to portray James as a seeker of his true self. Therefore, I disagree with the article and didn't find it interesting.

3. (answering Q1) I don't believe that Nike meant to diminish Maya's poem and I don't think they had the concept of diminishing it either. Like Abby said, poems don't have a right or wrong answer and each person view a poem differently. And when the article said, "The commercial portrays James as many things", I believe Nike was only trying to make James and Angelou look better.

(my question) Since we all seemed to believe Staff, the writer of the article, overreacted, Why do you think, if you also believe the article was overreacted, that Staff believed Nike and LeBron "trash talked" Maya Angelou?

[morganclyne]

1. In my opinion, this article was directly about the controversy between Maya Angelo's poem and Nike. In the article, it states that Nike discredited Maya Angelou’s poem, through their commercial involving LeBron James. The Harriet Staff says the commercial made a mockery of poetry and Maya Angelo's poem. The Nike Company had misinterpreted the meaning of the poem and related to basketball as LeBron is debating what should be his career. The Harriet Staff lashes out at Nike's interpretation and says that they feel Nike ruined the meaning of the poem and the poem itself.
2.In reaction to this piece, I felt the whole thing was very controversial and very unnecessary. I felt that the article was trying to defend Maya when I'm sure Nike meant nothing harmful toward's her poem in the beginning. As Abbey said, there is no right or wrong answer to poetry. I found the article boring and I disagree with it.
3.In response to Rosemarie's question number one, I do not believe Nike meant to diminish Maya's poem. I feel this way because I doubt that Nike would want to put a bad spot light onto their name if unnecessary. I also feel that they didn't think about other people reacting negatively towards it just that it would make for a good commercial. Finally, my question would be do you think people are over reacting trying to defend Maya's poem or do you believe she herself would have been hurt by this?

[clareaker]

1. In my opinion, this article was saying that Nike didn't give enough credit to Maya Angelou's poem. Nike took the poem apart and tried to create a commercial based off of it. However, the writer of this article believes that they did not do the poem justice and that they portrayed LeBron as a hero, although the writer seems to believe he is not.
2. I agree with Morgan that the article was extremely unnecessary and that Nike didn't mean any harm towards Angelo's poem. I think Nike created a fun and clever commercial and this writer looked too far into it. I didn't like this article because there really was no reason for it.
3. To answer Morgan's question, I don't think Maya would have been hurt by this at all. She said herself that nobody should listen to criticism, so whether or not the commercial was made to offend her, she woouldn't be bothered by it.
Q: What do you think the writer of the article meant when she said "Nike is the poet, not LeBron"?

[caileighidell]

1. After reading this article I see that it's main purpose is to draw attention to the controversial Nike commercial involving the poem by Maya Angelou. This commercial not only lacked the proper credit for the poem, but it ultimately belittled Angelou's poetry. By diminishing Angelou's work, this commercial caused an unnecessary argument that could have be completely avoided.

2. After reading this article I feel as though this is not the first time the commercial world has used someone else's work for their own benefit. If Nike had the indecency to take Angelou's hard work without crediting her as their source, who else has had this same idea and put it into action? There must be other companies, like Nike, who have also performed these inhumane actions.

3.(answering Clare's question) When the writer of this article wrote,"Nike is the poet, not LeBron" I believe that she meant it to say that Nike must think of their own way to sell their product and not rely on the spokesman, which in this case is LeBron, to sell it for them.

4.(my question) *The author of this article seemed to be quite moved by this issue. Do you believe that she, herself has had her own work plagiarized?

[jessicanoel]

1. I agree with Morgan. The article talks about how Maya Angelou's poem "Still I Rise" is being discredited and mocked through Nike's commercial. They took the deeper meaning of the poem and made it simple. The downgraded it to merely talk about basketball. That is truly wrong.

2. I agree with Roe's opinion about the writers overreacting. Commercials are very different from poems and writing. A poem is generally interpreted and has a deep, valuable meaning. Whereas a commercial is very straight forward about trying to sell their product. I don't believe the company intentionally ruined Maya Angelou's poem.

Answer to Roe's question three: Yes, I believe so. They do not actually know who he is or what he likes. They simply know what he does for a living. Like I stated above, the commercial writers could have had no intention to ruin the poem. I feel as if the writers were being very harsh.

Q1: Because not everyone is a fan of sports, do you think that is why the author was so harsh and felt so strongly about this conflict?

[abigaildolan]

1) This article seems to be more about the dissatisfaction the Author has with the way the poem was portrayed on television then it actually being mocked. Yes it says that it was misinterpreted and defaced by selecting only specific lines that promoted the commercials product, but it is more about the Author and her opinion. She strongly believes that Nike was wrong. That the company was only using the poem and cared little for what it actually meant. Yet it gives us more detail about the commercial than the actual poem. The Author almost assumes we have read the poem, but not that we have seen the commercial. I agree with those who have already responded the Author seems to definitely be overreacting. Commercials make fun of many other serious things, not just poetry.

2) I didn't like the article. It seemed to bias and very opinionated. I don't mind that she shared her opinion, but she did very little to back up what she felt. The article only expressed anger and frustration for me. I understand it was a critique, but a critique does not have to be so negative. Perhaps if she had not been so negative and explained her position a little more I may have sided with her. Her very obvious dislike and almost aggressive shot at the basketball player, for a commercial he probably had little to do with, is rather harsh.

3) I'll be answering Abby Jameson's question. I don't think Nike would really care so much as long as it didn't make a dent in their sales. I feel the large corporation would almost enjoy the publicity if it drew peoples attention to their product. After all she was not dismissing the product they were attempting to promote only the way they did it. I can not so much speak for LeBrom James. Perhaps if he actually does have a poetic side he might feel slight remorseful for the way they used the poem. Still I think it would be no more than an apology as it was really not such a horrible thing compared to some others.

My Question - The Author does not seem to like this commercial at all, almost to a point of being biassed. Do you think it is actually because she disapprove of they way they used the poem or because she does not like sports?

[mattteryek]

1. I agree with Roe and Jess. The article talks about how Nike's commercial misinterprets Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise." Nike adjusted the poem to relate to Lebron James undecided career, which has caused tensions among most formal poetics. I do not believe Nike intentionally created this commercial to ruin Maya Angelou's "Still I Rise," but instead provided a different interpretation to its meaning.

2. I didn't like this article for the same reason Allie didn't as well. I felt the article was very biased towards Nike and had a clear one minded interpretation of Maya Angelou's "Still I Rise." I do not understand as to why various interpretations are acknowledged as discrediting or ruining a particular masterpiece. In Lebron James defense, poet or not, he did not make the commercial, he was only in it.

3. (Answering Allies question) I felt the author of the article was being biased towards both. She clearly did not like the thought of a second interpretation of Maya Angelou's "Still I Rise," and did not like the thought of Lebron James as a poet.

My Question: Do you think Lebron James read Maya Angelou's "Still I Rise" prior to filming the commercial?

[paulabatoon]

1. The article is criticizing the use of Maya Angelou's poem in a Nike commercial. The commercial related the poem to basketball and Lebron James, something literary critics were very dissatisfied about. Like Matt, I don't think Nike intentionally ruined the poem. In fact, I think Nike was trying to draw attention to the poem and let the commercial have an emotional impact on the viewer. I don't think Nike intended to cause this controversy.

2. I didn't like the article for the same reason Abbey and Matt didn't. This article was very biased, and I could practically feel the anger coming from this piece. Poetry is meant to be interpreted in different ways - the Harriet Staff has one interpretation, Nike has another. Just because someone else's interpretation is different, it doesn't mean that person is "ruining" the piece.

3. (In response to Matt T's question) I think Lebron James read the poem prior to filming this commercial. He's the one starring in the commercial, so I think Nike would have at least given him the poem to read before filming. Also, I think the poem means something to him, since they used this particular poem for the commercial.
My question: Do you think the author has something against Lebron James himself? Is that why the author is so biased?

[dannyreilly]

I don't think the commercial misinterpets or downgrades the poem at all. For one it takes a literary piece and links it to athletics. That is not a very easy thing to do. Also, what is wrong with making the poem simple? Giving it a simpler meaning doesn't make it worse or less of a poem.

I didn't really have a preference with this article. I liked the topic and how it involved athletics and a poem. However, I agree with the people who said the author was biased and had a one-minded approach. (To Paula) I think the author has a problem with Nike and the commercial. BEcause Lebron James is in the commercial, he indirectly gets the blame.

(My question) Is there a possibility that Nike and Lebron both knew the overal meaning but just simply adjusted it to fit the commercial?

[kevinskocypec]

1. The Nike ad, which Lebron James mocks Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise," in, makes Angelou's poem look as if it is about basketball, and not inspirational situations it was meant for. I do not feel like Nike was indeed trying to mock and cause controversy, as Paula said, but merely trying to make a memorable commercial that could be related to by their viewers.

2. I am not in agreement with what the article stated because Nike was not trying to ruin the true maning of the poem. Critics skewed Nike's intentions due to enjoying Angelou's poem more than the commercial. Many companies have changed meanings of different works to reach out to their audience, and this one was successful in doing so.

3. (Answering Danny's Questions) Lebron James and Nike definitely knew the meaning to the poem. They must have noticed the inspiration behind the poem and realized they could relate it to athletics as well as racism.

My Question: If this would not be the first time a company has changed the meaning of a poem, song, or quote, why was this one very controversial?

[hugozazzarini]

1. This article is about the Harriet Staff's response to Nike and LeBron James' use of the poem "Still I Rise" by Maya Angelou in one of their commercials. Throughout the article, they firmly state that their belief that Nike and LeBron ruined Maya Angelou's poem and interpreted the wrong meaning in the poem. They also criticize Nike and Lebron for apparently simplifying the poem to make it fit the commercial.
2. I disagree with the people that wrote this article completely. I believe it stirred things up simply for the sake of causing problems. Also, poems can have any meaning that one could want them to have as we are all entitled to have our own opinions and interpretations. While I think Maya Angelou didn't intend "Still I Rise" to be about basketball, I think Nike and Lebron could argue on how they interpreted it.
3. (Answering Roe's 2nd Question) I do not think that this commercial diminished Maya's poem because like I said while the author knows what they meant when they wrote their poems, everyone else is entitled to their opinions and interpretations and Nike and Lebron were simply just expressing these opinions.
My Question: Do you think that if and when Lebron James read this poem that he thought it had things in common with him?

[karlpreisner]

1. This article is about how the Nike commercial changes the meaning of Maya Angelou's poem. Staff shoots down the commercial for turning Angelou's words into "trash talk and gamesmanship." She believed the commercial mocked Maya's poem and took away its original meaning.
2.To me, Staff is overreacting. The writers of the commercial did not intend to change the meaning of the poem. They merely were trying to create a good commercial. In fact, I think they were hoping that, if they included a literary reference in their commercial, they could appeal to a crowd of literary critics. By doing this, the commercial writers were trying to show their audience that Nike could relate to other things: literature.
3. To answer Kevin's question, I do not think this is the only time a company changed the meaning of a poem, etc. There are many other times this occurred when it was much more controversial. But, this one is so controversial because Nike is a huge brand name and they also included a super star, Lebron James.
Q:Why does the writer of this article, Staff, accuse Nike's poetry critic of being "cynical?"