CRITIQUE ARCHIVE

HOME   SYLLABUS

http://www.grandtimes.com

By Jessica Norah Bowles-Martinez

The site opens by introducing itself as a weekly internet magazine for seniors. It promises to be "controversial, entertaining and informative." Right off I find myself expecting to hear about issues like politics, sex, and perhaps a forum for debate. Then my stereotypes of elders take over and I begin to reinterpret the description. I imagine controversial to mean they cover tame subjects like, staying up past 10pm, and entertainment to be playing cards, while informative would imply comparisons of products like Ensure all presented by people named Ethel using antiquated proverbs. I feel embarrassed as I recall that my grandmother went white water raftering at 75 and now in her 80s she participates in walk-a-thons and political debates, and feel ashamed for having these obviously false stereotypes ingrained in me. This site also seems to fall into the trap by not always addressing issues like sex or politics, which has a direct effect on their lives. Instead, the page focuses on "fluffy" content more often than it should.

The site contains articles ranging from subjects such as grandchildren, alternative healthcare, relationships, unusual travel opportunities, healthful recipes, and practical legal/financial advice, which it apparently perceives to be the most important topics to the seniors. After reading through the relationship articles, I was surprised at how general they were, and quick to categorize the behavior of elderly males and females. They never talked about sex directly but instead deal with marriages, death, and general platonic relationships. Most of the advice could be applied to maintaining friendships and seemed to want to sidestep more important specific issues by giving an innocent, overly optimistic, outlook on relationships. It sounded like what you learn as a small child about "getting along with others" without any assumption of physical attraction or desire. If this were targeted at me I'd feel it was condescending as well as boring. It is hard for me to tell if this is a universal sentiment, as I grew up with sex being talked about frankly and openly, while its possible that to people from a generation unaccustomed to such frank talk that it would be seen as crude or insulting.

The page does seem to take the poor site of seniors into mind by having the text in large font. It is also against a yellow background in some parts, I do not know if this makes it easier for people with certain vision problems to read or not. The disadvantage of the bigger text is that it requires a lot more scrolling, which makes the point that being able to read the text at all is more important than ease of navigation. I tend to agree on this point for even if the site required no scrolling if the text is impossible to read no one will visit the site.

From what I've heard in class and from other statistics seniors tend to feel lonely and isolated, yet this site did almost nothing to help unite its senior readers. The closest thing was the area on World War II where people could list their information and a picture in the hopes that someone else they know would see them and contact them. Compared to the teen pages I saw which had journals or online forums where other readers can share about themselves as well as debate about issues they find relevant, this site was static and boring. It may be a place to read articles that have the perspective of seniors in mind, but it is not a way to strengthen the senior community, it is only the equivalent of a magazine and does not take advantage possibilities of being online.

The site is simply a place to read articles that are intended for seniors. It is no different from a newsletter in print form. Though it does claim to have a large readership so its articles must be of interest to a large number of seniors.