I've just been lost in metafilter for about two hours.
Among the things I read were this and this. There was more, but that was about 40 clicks ago. This is what tipped me off to the fact that I am definitely no longer in Kansas. And it kind of terrifies me.
Metafilter is pretty accessible to all and allows anybody to sashay on in and add a link or a comment. I like the site's articulated goal: "This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members." Sounds a little less kumbaya than Wikipedia's "We're going to create a space for THE SUM OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE!" (grin). Metafilter makes you rack up a little street cred before you get to post on a main page and be a lofty contributor. You've got a waiting period of at least a week (oh God! A whole WEEK!? A veritable cyber LIFETIME!), plus postings, before becoming eligible for this honor.
What makes a good post for the community? Well, MeFi says this: "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others." I can dig it. I also enjoy that MetaFilter doesn't encourage shameless self promotion. It gently suggests instead "Self promotion can be "earned." If you consistently post thought-provoking comments or links on the site, people will click on your name to know you better. On the profile page, you can put your own URL and people can check that out. " So then being cool and thoughtful gets you brownie points? This is my kind of place...or a place in which I wouldn't do very well. Either/or.
Slashdot is also kind of interesting but seems like a space for people vastly more technologically inclined than I. The articles were interesting to me, but ultimately not quirky and weird enough to keep me reading for hours (evil, EVIL MetaFilter! I should be working on my thesis!), the same way MeFi did. Quite frankly, I'm not sure about what a lot of slashdot is talking about because I don't have the appropriate body of knowledge, but for people who can grasp this stuff (or if I simply read a little more) I'm sure it's cool stuff.
And now I should continue listening to Jeff Buckley, drinking Earl Grey and avoiding my thesis like bubonic baboons. Or something sort of like that.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Blogging: Stripping us of Humanity, or highlighting our basic scraftiness?
Before I get on to metafilter and the like, I was interested in something Jim said in his comment on this post. I apologize in advance for quoting such a (well written!) hearty chunk, but I'd like to respond to all of it, thus I think it appropriate to include it all.
"The distance and analytical nature of the blog changed my voice, making it more metallic and harsh as I examined someone who I’d met for two hours and then passed judgment on him as if he were another blog. He is human and I forgot and in doing so became a little less human myself. That I think is the great flaw of blogs and technology – we have trouble communicating our humanity. There is no inflection of voice, a smile, a raised eyebrow to redirect, clarify or soften sarcasm, to add humor where it was meant to be. The words simply sit on the screen, not controlled by the writer, but interpreted by the reader. Even if we don’t assume new identities, as in Wikipedia or Second Life, we are new, different because of the flat nature of the medium. Perhaps, that is why there are all these odd fights, flaming on blogs and Wikipedia – the nuance of humanity is not there."
So the blog gives us distance and yes, by nature is analytical (or, in the words of my father, who now reads this blog as well as most of yours ((*Hi, Dad!*)) "seems like a whole lotta navel gazing to me, Cato.") but does it make us LESS human, or rather frighteningly moreso? Perhaps this'll mean me outing myself as something of a cynic, but I think that deep down inside, past the layers of kindness and rational justice, we're all just a little bit assholic--the blog just happens to lend itself so nicely to showcasing this basic human snarkitude. Also, aren't we always passing judgment on the people we meet, though it may be on some unnoticed, unconscious level? As a culture we've become so preoccupied with political correctness that it's hardly appropriate to breathe too heavily in someone's general direction, much less tell them what we think of them. I think that out of instinct and desire to be a) polite b) liked and c) cover our asses, we're far more apt to smile pretty and call people nitwits in our heads than we are to simply behave indifferently or express actual antipathy. So I don't know, Jim, if the blog makes us crueler by removing a level of humanity or if it makes us more honest by ripping off the bullshit colored mantle of proper social protocol. For the record, I hope it's the former, but I can't help but play devil's advocate and entertain the possibility of the latter.
Also, I'd like to think that with carefully chosen words and clearly communicated ideas, blog intent can't be missed by too huge a margin. Text DOES communicate that which the author wishes--it's really a matter of careful diction and thorough cogitation before one gets to the point at which he hits "publish," and the words are up there forever. With that said... I think it's unlikely that bloggers often ARRIVE at that "thoroughly cogitated" point before hitting "publish" (I know I often don't). Therefore, intent is frequently slightly off-center and people, being slightly assholic at the core, love to be offended, so will naturally vault up onto their soapboxes and start a fight at really any given little time.
P.S. Shout out to Aldon: "snark" is an amazing word. You severely improved the quality of my afternoon by using it. :) (Go ahead and TRY to misinterpret that smiley face. See? You CAN'T). ;)
"The distance and analytical nature of the blog changed my voice, making it more metallic and harsh as I examined someone who I’d met for two hours and then passed judgment on him as if he were another blog. He is human and I forgot and in doing so became a little less human myself. That I think is the great flaw of blogs and technology – we have trouble communicating our humanity. There is no inflection of voice, a smile, a raised eyebrow to redirect, clarify or soften sarcasm, to add humor where it was meant to be. The words simply sit on the screen, not controlled by the writer, but interpreted by the reader. Even if we don’t assume new identities, as in Wikipedia or Second Life, we are new, different because of the flat nature of the medium. Perhaps, that is why there are all these odd fights, flaming on blogs and Wikipedia – the nuance of humanity is not there."
So the blog gives us distance and yes, by nature is analytical (or, in the words of my father, who now reads this blog as well as most of yours ((*Hi, Dad!*)) "seems like a whole lotta navel gazing to me, Cato.") but does it make us LESS human, or rather frighteningly moreso? Perhaps this'll mean me outing myself as something of a cynic, but I think that deep down inside, past the layers of kindness and rational justice, we're all just a little bit assholic--the blog just happens to lend itself so nicely to showcasing this basic human snarkitude. Also, aren't we always passing judgment on the people we meet, though it may be on some unnoticed, unconscious level? As a culture we've become so preoccupied with political correctness that it's hardly appropriate to breathe too heavily in someone's general direction, much less tell them what we think of them. I think that out of instinct and desire to be a) polite b) liked and c) cover our asses, we're far more apt to smile pretty and call people nitwits in our heads than we are to simply behave indifferently or express actual antipathy. So I don't know, Jim, if the blog makes us crueler by removing a level of humanity or if it makes us more honest by ripping off the bullshit colored mantle of proper social protocol. For the record, I hope it's the former, but I can't help but play devil's advocate and entertain the possibility of the latter.
Also, I'd like to think that with carefully chosen words and clearly communicated ideas, blog intent can't be missed by too huge a margin. Text DOES communicate that which the author wishes--it's really a matter of careful diction and thorough cogitation before one gets to the point at which he hits "publish," and the words are up there forever. With that said... I think it's unlikely that bloggers often ARRIVE at that "thoroughly cogitated" point before hitting "publish" (I know I often don't). Therefore, intent is frequently slightly off-center and people, being slightly assholic at the core, love to be offended, so will naturally vault up onto their soapboxes and start a fight at really any given little time.
P.S. Shout out to Aldon: "snark" is an amazing word. You severely improved the quality of my afternoon by using it. :) (Go ahead and TRY to misinterpret that smiley face. See? You CAN'T). ;)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
An afternoon Wiki-Chuckle
Behold: the dangers of unlimited, often unchecked Wikipedia editing. Scope out a perfect example of the kind of stuff Jason mentioned last night that can be screwed with by pretty much anyone and go for weeks or months without being corrected.
Somehow, I suspect this isn't an unbiased estimation of what Romantic poetry is, though I admit I think I've said pretty similarly damning things about the genre. However, I'd never, ever use "gay" to describe it. "Flamboyant" and sensational like a nice pair of pink leopard print leather pants, yes.
Somehow, I suspect this isn't an unbiased estimation of what Romantic poetry is, though I admit I think I've said pretty similarly damning things about the genre. However, I'd never, ever use "gay" to describe it. "Flamboyant" and sensational like a nice pair of pink leopard print leather pants, yes.
Monday, October 23, 2006
So I guess I'm going to go ahead and piss people off again...
You know how some people seem to take on entirely different persona(e) when they write versus when they speak? Familiar with the way others' prose personalities translate directly to their spoken words? I myself am probably a case of the former, save in situations in which I'm very comfortable or well established. While I may come off textually as very confident, assured, smarmy, and sometimes even righteous, I confess that I'm a rather nervous public speaker. I'll get blushy and look down and forget what I'm going to say, dig my toes into carpet and wonder how many people are staring at that huge zit crater southeast of my left nostril. Our friend Jason, though? Man, is he a case of the latter.
Being a writing tutor I'm especially adept at wading through bullshit to dig from the muck swallowed diamond rings, toy soldiers and gold bullion, so before tonight's appearance and with my readings of Jason's Wikipedia criticism as background, I'd decided that Jason had begun to make some good points in his articles and the speech, their only true fault being lack of cohesion. His written/transcribed material, while entertaining, proved continually troubling for me because by the end of whatever piece I'd been cruising, I still wasn't very clear as to Jason's actual stance save a general sentiment of negativity toward Wikipedia. Jason's more than willing to step in and make attacks--(hello Wiki-vandalism!)--but doesn't seem to have much in the way of productive solutions. Nor do I get the sense that he's clearly thought out and identified in explicable terms the core of what he sees as being wrong with Wikipedia's system.
Exactly as he does in his articles, tonight he talked around suggestions of points, providing lots of interesting factual information regurgitated into our class' collective hungry gullet and I'm full, but not satisfied. If in fact he can, I'd like to see Jason dredge up from his miasma of swirling ideas what he sees as the core faults of Wikipedia, whip them into the shape of ugly hobgoblins he can plainly expose for the entire world to see beyond a doubt, and proceed to rip them to shreds as, with his presumed body of knowledge, he should be able to do with his eyes closed. What I wonder--and what I wondered after I'd done my reading of his stuff for the last real post--is if Jason knows what these flaws are, or if he's just one of those individuals who's dangerously fond of being contentious, devilishly grinning over steepled fingers, giggling "I know more than you know!" Or maybe he's just jealous of Jimbo? The resentment seemed rather personal. After all, Jason prides himself on his charisma and speaking skills; perhaps Jimbo's being audaciously compelling and a true charmer has sparked some sort of primeval competitive instinct in the soul of Jason Scott?
Now, please don't get me wrong: I like wiseguys. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to identify myself as one, but being a wiseass without whipping out the goods to back it up? I'm not such a fan of that. Y'all remember my hangup on truthiness (If not, check it two posts ago). I thought that I could identify with Jason as far as goes placing a high value on veracity, but now I'm not so sure he's even advocating for dissemination of truth and eradication of misinformation. Instead, he's just kind've windbagging along, mumbling "you're making stupid edits." Additionally, I'd assert that participating in vandalism and name-calling without being able to state precisely why and manifest why you've any claim on doing so does nothing to promote personal integrity or make any situation better. Jason claims he's an inclusionist, but it seems he'd rather be an exclusive, smirking lurker of the wiki-wiki-world (yes: please do read that with full-on DJ turntable sounds) than work to advance and improve a technology/community/phenomena for which he claims to have so much respect. I get the sense that Jason is content to be lord of his purportedly clean and upstanding limited wiki-land (was anybody else curious about the communities in which he participates? I was. I should have inquired) than sustain a demotion to share his expertise and become a lesser baronet of the wiki Universe.
In my post from earlier this week I said that Jason was entertaining and interesting to read. This is still true, and he was engaging in class (just ask him if he's a compelling and engaging speaker--he'll tell you!). In much the same way, class clowns make class more fun, too. This doesn't mean, though, that they're the guys you respect as they shoot spitballs at the group giving a subpar presentation up at the front of the classroom. As in Jason's articles, his talk in class left me silent not out of satisfaction, but rather hushed and dazzled by intricate circumulocution, questioning whether I'd just missed the obvious or if there had been no real point made.
In all, I think Jason's got the goods up there in his head as to why Wikipedia is an evil machine and deserves to be overthrown (or at the very least sacked and remodeled) but until he lays out in plain terms why this is so rather than defaulting to broad negative assertions supported by entertaining examples, I've yet to be convinced.
Come on, Jason. Be a smart bully and deliver.
Being a writing tutor I'm especially adept at wading through bullshit to dig from the muck swallowed diamond rings, toy soldiers and gold bullion, so before tonight's appearance and with my readings of Jason's Wikipedia criticism as background, I'd decided that Jason had begun to make some good points in his articles and the speech, their only true fault being lack of cohesion. His written/transcribed material, while entertaining, proved continually troubling for me because by the end of whatever piece I'd been cruising, I still wasn't very clear as to Jason's actual stance save a general sentiment of negativity toward Wikipedia. Jason's more than willing to step in and make attacks--(hello Wiki-vandalism!)--but doesn't seem to have much in the way of productive solutions. Nor do I get the sense that he's clearly thought out and identified in explicable terms the core of what he sees as being wrong with Wikipedia's system.
Exactly as he does in his articles, tonight he talked around suggestions of points, providing lots of interesting factual information regurgitated into our class' collective hungry gullet and I'm full, but not satisfied. If in fact he can, I'd like to see Jason dredge up from his miasma of swirling ideas what he sees as the core faults of Wikipedia, whip them into the shape of ugly hobgoblins he can plainly expose for the entire world to see beyond a doubt, and proceed to rip them to shreds as, with his presumed body of knowledge, he should be able to do with his eyes closed. What I wonder--and what I wondered after I'd done my reading of his stuff for the last real post--is if Jason knows what these flaws are, or if he's just one of those individuals who's dangerously fond of being contentious, devilishly grinning over steepled fingers, giggling "I know more than you know!" Or maybe he's just jealous of Jimbo? The resentment seemed rather personal. After all, Jason prides himself on his charisma and speaking skills; perhaps Jimbo's being audaciously compelling and a true charmer has sparked some sort of primeval competitive instinct in the soul of Jason Scott?
Now, please don't get me wrong: I like wiseguys. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to identify myself as one, but being a wiseass without whipping out the goods to back it up? I'm not such a fan of that. Y'all remember my hangup on truthiness (If not, check it two posts ago). I thought that I could identify with Jason as far as goes placing a high value on veracity, but now I'm not so sure he's even advocating for dissemination of truth and eradication of misinformation. Instead, he's just kind've windbagging along, mumbling "you're making stupid edits." Additionally, I'd assert that participating in vandalism and name-calling without being able to state precisely why and manifest why you've any claim on doing so does nothing to promote personal integrity or make any situation better. Jason claims he's an inclusionist, but it seems he'd rather be an exclusive, smirking lurker of the wiki-wiki-world (yes: please do read that with full-on DJ turntable sounds) than work to advance and improve a technology/community/phenomena for which he claims to have so much respect. I get the sense that Jason is content to be lord of his purportedly clean and upstanding limited wiki-land (was anybody else curious about the communities in which he participates? I was. I should have inquired) than sustain a demotion to share his expertise and become a lesser baronet of the wiki Universe.
In my post from earlier this week I said that Jason was entertaining and interesting to read. This is still true, and he was engaging in class (just ask him if he's a compelling and engaging speaker--he'll tell you!). In much the same way, class clowns make class more fun, too. This doesn't mean, though, that they're the guys you respect as they shoot spitballs at the group giving a subpar presentation up at the front of the classroom. As in Jason's articles, his talk in class left me silent not out of satisfaction, but rather hushed and dazzled by intricate circumulocution, questioning whether I'd just missed the obvious or if there had been no real point made.
In all, I think Jason's got the goods up there in his head as to why Wikipedia is an evil machine and deserves to be overthrown (or at the very least sacked and remodeled) but until he lays out in plain terms why this is so rather than defaulting to broad negative assertions supported by entertaining examples, I've yet to be convinced.
Come on, Jason. Be a smart bully and deliver.
Careful distinctions
Aherm.
lit-er-al-ly [lit-er-uh-lee]
–adverb
1. in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.
lit-er-ate-ly [lit-er-it-ly]
–adverb
1. well-informedly, knowledgeably.
lit-er-al-ly [lit-er-uh-lee]
–adverb
1. in a literal manner; word for word: to translate literally.
lit-er-ate-ly [lit-er-it-ly]
–adverb
1. well-informedly, knowledgeably.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Mmm. The scent of idealism in the evening
Every time I gird my loins and venture across campus to Vernon Street I am forcibly reminded within one boozy hour of the myriad reasons I don't go to the frats on a regular basis. Somehow in my old age (Wait; scratch that. I developed this stance after my third or so week at Trinity) I've become a social vegetarian--now even the sight of the Vernon Street meat market sends my stomach into nauseous backflips. The same blank faces, the same porky shoulders, the same trembling ribs as every weekend at the shop and I'm thinking I'd like to go out to the plot in the back and grow (or shoot!) my own. It doesn't matter how much cheap beer I've been urged to swill, or at how many bass-thumps-per-minute the music's chunking along--the Vernon social scene perpetually disamuses me. This is why I am well slept: last night I saw me walking home by 1 a.m., pondering college life and, by the time I reached Summit, pretty solidly deciding I'll stay in my cozy room and take my chances being seen as a perverse and insular social anomaly if it means I'll be exempt from false interactions, strappy tanks and Natty Ice. There goes that notion of Vernon providing an ideal social scene...
On to another falsely ideal system!
Jason's articles were interesting and, shockingly, I actually did read through the transcript of the 45-minute-speech Colin indicated we might understandably skip. I respect what I think Jason's saying in regards to the evils of Wikipedia (that it's a really subjective tool that we ugly humans have run away with and shat upon and manipulated in our standardly devious little mammalian ways, giggling demonically and cackling "look what I can do!" over and over as we twist and tie and tear apart); what I find perhaps even more interesting than his points, though, is that he doesn't directly state what he opines to be wrong with Wikipedia. He never explicitly says, "This, this, and this is a problem," but instead is implicitly suggestive, backstroking around what he sees as primary issues with really entertaining metaphors and the terse, sardonic one-liners that kept me reading after I might have stopped (my favorite being the wry "wow, what a great thing is man") that smack of a healthy dosage of Dane Cookism rather than goold ol' exposition.
So Wikipedia was basically founded on a high, hippie-dippie, let's hold hands and sing and believe in the basic good of man notion? Surprising. Jason says of Wikipedia's founder: "Jimbo Wales is a Randian Objectivist. This means that in his particular interpretation of that philosophical thought, he does not like to interfere, he likes to give general ideas, he likes to trust in people, and he likes that the truth, that the truth represents an honest objective entity that cannot be questioned. A is A. That is to say, if somebody says "this is blue", no amount of your stupid liberal whining is going to make it not blue. That's the theory behind that aspect of Randian Objectivism." In theory, this is really quite lovely, but the truth is never "the truth," and even when "the truth" has been processed through a number of lenses it's still less truth-y than it could be (which Jason does sort of address). Seems to me that in his Randian Objectivism Jim Walkes accidentally started off a great space for a cyber information disseminationg commune that believes in shifting viewpoints all holding valid information and truthiness. How postmodern.
I'm particularly fond of the portion of Jason's speech in which he talks about Carmine DeSapio, Jason offering a little criticism of the dangers of promoting half-truths: "Now, who gives a shit? It's Carmine DeSapio, he's the last guy of Tammany Hall, I get it, we're done. And that's the problem, is you have to say: Well, which one are you going to do? Are you going to self-aggrandize, or are you going to criticise? And I'm going to go with criticising because again, when you say sum of human knowledge..."
I really like (and subscribe to) the idea that if it's not the the truth, it's not the truth, and there IS no median and no acceptable venue for bullshit. Personal truths can be taken only so far--there has to be one whole, agreed upon truth at the end of the day, and it will probably be an amalgamation of many versions of what the truth is. What I think I hear Jason saying, though not explicitly, is that if you're promoting something as a fact, make goddamn sure it's a fact. Approximations, no matter how near, have absolutely no business being labelled as truths--thus, the danger of Wikipedia and the outrageously high likelihood of misinformation.
Perhaps I didn't read enough, so somebody set me straight if this is the case--but I couldn't identify any place where Jason provides and remedies. I'd be really curious to hear from him the direction in which he'd like Wikipedia to move--you know--maybe propose some alternatives. How would Jason fix what he's criticizing? How would he make Wikipedia a more reliable source? Anybody have the answer? Is this written somewhere, or shall I scour more?
All in all, I don't hear Jason advocating for a 20th century equivalent of heretical bookburning, but instead for some regulation to verify truth for truth and skim the bullshit off the top of the information stew.
Also, I would have really, really liked it if Wikipedia HAD been called "Jimbo's Big Bag o' Trivia." If such were the case, damn, would I ever have some ideas as to how to remedy the site's "boring color scheme and layout." Somehow, and I have no idea why, said ideas all involve pigs in bandanas and red and white checkerboard patterns with roosters scrambling along the borders set to a backdrop of "Turkey in the Straw" and barnyard noise audio features... Now if that isn't worthy of respect...Saturday, October 14, 2006
I love this woman
With every last shred of my medium sized, only-partially-blighted, preshrunk American soul.
Watch it and be entranced. Go ahead.
All hail Regina Spektor.
Last month at Toad's Place I stood about 3 feet away from the teacup sized singer whilst she gave what's easily the best live performance I've seen. Though she welcomed on stage a bassist, perhaps one (two!?) guitarists and a percussionist, she tickled/banged/caressed out almost all of her new album, Begin To Hope, on the ivories, solo. Despite having a cold, Regina sang like a particularly winsome angel between her ladylike sniffles and the decidedly unladylike (but outrageously endearing) hocking of something I'd even term a "cute" loogey into a roll of toilet paper. For anyone who's read Kafka's "Josephine The Singer, or The Mousefolk," the depressive Czech wrote of Josephine's particularly moving "piping," and though he was poking some oblique fun at Josephine when he said this, I make none of Regina when I say she pipes quite beautifully.
I'll admit I do have a bit of a girl crush on Regina Spektor (not even mucous can diminish my love!), so I'm a bit biased. And I'm okay with that. But please--don't take my word for how amazing she is: do yourself a favor and go buy Begin To Hope, Eleven Eleven, Songs, or Soviet Kitsch and proceed to become as thoroughly enamored as I am. Or when you see me ask me to whip out my iPod and I'll give you a truly fine Regina sampling and preach to you the wonders of her mythologically laden, lyrically sparkling little gems. Forget pleasing: I aim to convert. :)
Watch it and be entranced. Go ahead.
All hail Regina Spektor.
Last month at Toad's Place I stood about 3 feet away from the teacup sized singer whilst she gave what's easily the best live performance I've seen. Though she welcomed on stage a bassist, perhaps one (two!?) guitarists and a percussionist, she tickled/banged/caressed out almost all of her new album, Begin To Hope, on the ivories, solo. Despite having a cold, Regina sang like a particularly winsome angel between her ladylike sniffles and the decidedly unladylike (but outrageously endearing) hocking of something I'd even term a "cute" loogey into a roll of toilet paper. For anyone who's read Kafka's "Josephine The Singer, or The Mousefolk," the depressive Czech wrote of Josephine's particularly moving "piping," and though he was poking some oblique fun at Josephine when he said this, I make none of Regina when I say she pipes quite beautifully.
I'll admit I do have a bit of a girl crush on Regina Spektor (not even mucous can diminish my love!), so I'm a bit biased. And I'm okay with that. But please--don't take my word for how amazing she is: do yourself a favor and go buy Begin To Hope, Eleven Eleven, Songs, or Soviet Kitsch and proceed to become as thoroughly enamored as I am. Or when you see me ask me to whip out my iPod and I'll give you a truly fine Regina sampling and preach to you the wonders of her mythologically laden, lyrically sparkling little gems. Forget pleasing: I aim to convert. :)
Video killed...writers?
Just a thought: perhaps part of the reason there's such a smorgasbord of ways to represent oneself on the Internet now (not just via prose, but audio and video, too) is because some of us are far better at speaking and acting, giving a holistic, three dimensional impression, than we are at writing. Or perhaps vlogging is preferable because some people simply aren't stellar spellers or in love with the written word. :) With all the different mediums we can use to harness this media it makes it very accessible to people of many sundry talents and strengths. (Thank God blogging doesn't necessarily involve math, or I'd be driven to videolog, too). Then again, nobody'd watch my ugly mug posting every day...or at least I highly doubt it.
I think video is a fantastic addition to what we can do with the internet, but as someone who IS a lover of lexicon and an adamant enthusiast of the written word, I fear that we may be slowly eradicating the respect for and attention to writing it so well deserves. When middle schools begin offering classes in vlog casting in favor of essay writing, I'll probably draw myself a warm bath, light some candles, doff the fluorescents, turn on some Enya and sob until the water goes cold. Or just slash my wrists with my celadon inked fountain pen. But I suppose I'm just a bit of a drama queen, and I only have Enya on tape and no longer own a tape deck. There goes that dream.
Michelle Malkin IS indeed a firecracker. Her video "open letter to YouTube" is simple, pithy and well conceived. I think it's probably pretty impactful, too, because Malkin got to be an actress--she got to almost have a conversation--because of that video and because that letter was in fact a VIDEO, not a letter. She may have made more of an impression upon the YouTube execs who watched that than she might have had she simply written an incendiary email. Attaching a human face to a thing (especially if this "thing" happens to have the potential to inflame) always makes it that much more compelling; and when you're clever, attractive, and have excellent public-speaking skills, using these assets are not only natural but necessary. By accessing video as her medium for rebuttal Malkin clearly selected what would be best for her persona and her cause.
On to blogs and art!
Quite frankly, I don't know what the story is behind this site--it's not something that I can or want to sum up in a handful of words--but I like it. A lot. This amalgamation of videos by creator Mica and the vibrant little implied community swirling about it really appeals to me. Mica's About Me section reads like an introduction I'd like to have made as a precursor to making a new friend (i.e. Mica's cool shit, and her shit is cool, too. I'd seek her out to be friends if I lived in New York).
I particularly enjoyed watching this for its random circusy music and Pythonesque motion.
Mica says, "The moving images I put here are not even sketches, they are more like doodles." In this case, one of those really elaborate, astoundingly finely done doodles you orchestrate in class whilst your wizened Professor drones on about psychoanalytic theory as applied to 15th century to-do lists of aging housewives and hopejusthopehopehope that somebody looks over your shoulder because, really, your doodle is amazing but you don't want to brag. Really. I think Mica's vlog stands testimony to how very liberating blogs are for artists of all sorts. This medium offers an instant, interactive audience that can watch, think, react, and give feedback. What other venue (aside from perhaps the stage in stand up comedy) allows for this? I keep thinking about degrees of perfomativity in various art forms and in various venues, and I'd like to say that there must be something similar to what blogs facilitate. I first thought "Hey. Why not plays?" but the theater audience is more or less a quiet, removed spectator (unless, of course, the drama unfolding is TRULY atrocious and someone's come armed with rotting fruit). Blogs really are unique in their immediate capacity for critical review, feeling out your audience's demands, and getting an instantaneous idea of the reception of your work (whether you write, vlog, sing, or strip). Hmph. Pretty liberating and pretty scary all at once.
I also really enjoyed this. Okay, I admit I liked it first because of its title's allusion to Cervantes' masterwork but I got dragged into the trippy video drama shortly thereafter. It's an anxious internet soap opera. Behind each episode there's this twitchy edge that wants to say just a little bit more. The episodes could easily lapse into full on cheeze (yes, with a z), but they don't. Instead, they seem honest and relevant and really, truly like the stories you'd be told if you were able to perch on the shoulder of a stranger on the street. A little campy? Mmm. Yeah. Is that the appeal? Shit, yeah it is! I hate TV unless it involves Hugh Laurie or the best show to ever go off television for being achingly too smart, but I rather like chasingwindmills and so, I hear, did a certain crazed campesino living on the Iberian Peninsula.
I love Don Quixote. And videos. And also ginger tea and snickerdoodles (obviously my Saturday nights are incredibly exciting and full of licentious and illegal activities).
Paz.
I think video is a fantastic addition to what we can do with the internet, but as someone who IS a lover of lexicon and an adamant enthusiast of the written word, I fear that we may be slowly eradicating the respect for and attention to writing it so well deserves. When middle schools begin offering classes in vlog casting in favor of essay writing, I'll probably draw myself a warm bath, light some candles, doff the fluorescents, turn on some Enya and sob until the water goes cold. Or just slash my wrists with my celadon inked fountain pen. But I suppose I'm just a bit of a drama queen, and I only have Enya on tape and no longer own a tape deck. There goes that dream.
Michelle Malkin IS indeed a firecracker. Her video "open letter to YouTube" is simple, pithy and well conceived. I think it's probably pretty impactful, too, because Malkin got to be an actress--she got to almost have a conversation--because of that video and because that letter was in fact a VIDEO, not a letter. She may have made more of an impression upon the YouTube execs who watched that than she might have had she simply written an incendiary email. Attaching a human face to a thing (especially if this "thing" happens to have the potential to inflame) always makes it that much more compelling; and when you're clever, attractive, and have excellent public-speaking skills, using these assets are not only natural but necessary. By accessing video as her medium for rebuttal Malkin clearly selected what would be best for her persona and her cause.
On to blogs and art!
Quite frankly, I don't know what the story is behind this site--it's not something that I can or want to sum up in a handful of words--but I like it. A lot. This amalgamation of videos by creator Mica and the vibrant little implied community swirling about it really appeals to me. Mica's About Me section reads like an introduction I'd like to have made as a precursor to making a new friend (i.e. Mica's cool shit, and her shit is cool, too. I'd seek her out to be friends if I lived in New York).
I particularly enjoyed watching this for its random circusy music and Pythonesque motion.
Mica says, "The moving images I put here are not even sketches, they are more like doodles." In this case, one of those really elaborate, astoundingly finely done doodles you orchestrate in class whilst your wizened Professor drones on about psychoanalytic theory as applied to 15th century to-do lists of aging housewives and hopejusthopehopehope that somebody looks over your shoulder because, really, your doodle is amazing but you don't want to brag. Really. I think Mica's vlog stands testimony to how very liberating blogs are for artists of all sorts. This medium offers an instant, interactive audience that can watch, think, react, and give feedback. What other venue (aside from perhaps the stage in stand up comedy) allows for this? I keep thinking about degrees of perfomativity in various art forms and in various venues, and I'd like to say that there must be something similar to what blogs facilitate. I first thought "Hey. Why not plays?" but the theater audience is more or less a quiet, removed spectator (unless, of course, the drama unfolding is TRULY atrocious and someone's come armed with rotting fruit). Blogs really are unique in their immediate capacity for critical review, feeling out your audience's demands, and getting an instantaneous idea of the reception of your work (whether you write, vlog, sing, or strip). Hmph. Pretty liberating and pretty scary all at once.
I also really enjoyed this. Okay, I admit I liked it first because of its title's allusion to Cervantes' masterwork but I got dragged into the trippy video drama shortly thereafter. It's an anxious internet soap opera. Behind each episode there's this twitchy edge that wants to say just a little bit more. The episodes could easily lapse into full on cheeze (yes, with a z), but they don't. Instead, they seem honest and relevant and really, truly like the stories you'd be told if you were able to perch on the shoulder of a stranger on the street. A little campy? Mmm. Yeah. Is that the appeal? Shit, yeah it is! I hate TV unless it involves Hugh Laurie or the best show to ever go off television for being achingly too smart, but I rather like chasingwindmills and so, I hear, did a certain crazed campesino living on the Iberian Peninsula.
I love Don Quixote. And videos. And also ginger tea and snickerdoodles (obviously my Saturday nights are incredibly exciting and full of licentious and illegal activities).
Paz.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
I suck at titles and always have.
What arrested me in the Johnson article is the idea of creating virtual worlds where there might be "little virtual poetry readings," and such. Sounds cool, doesn't it? Well. Au contraire: I have reason to believe this may actually happen and have an outrageously negative impact upon human life. Read on.
I have a friend who, in sophomore year, was so enthralled by his World of Warcraft game and so unwilling to suspend it (even for the moment it might take to call a helpful friend who'd volunteer to help him in a time of need) that he refrained from handing in a twelve page final paper he actually wrote, and consequently failed his class. He needed this class for his major and is taking it again this year. The worst part? He thinks it's funny. Yes, ladies and gents--this is in no way fabular. The sacrifice of reality for cyber-reality terrifies me and makes me wonder where the value once placed upon genuine human contact has really gone. No wonder, I say, so many of us are overworked, depressed, and feel isolated. Direct result of too many hours spent in solitary amusement in darkened rooms with layers and layers of grease-stained pizza boxes, sulking over a W.O.W lose ? Maybe.
...Then again, I myself have been known to disappear to my lair and IM for hours at a time and into the wee hours of the morning, rambling about many sundry inanities and confiding secrets I wouldn't tell people face to face. I'm just as guilty as my friend who failed his class, just perhaps not quite as much of an isolationist nerd. (Hey. Watch it. I said quite.)
From onewordforeskimo's post I particularly enjoyed this question:
"Do blogs disseminate information in a clear and direct way? What sort of information? What sort of blogs?"
Ah. Clear and direct. What IS clear and direct, really? Jenn says that blogs are like literature in that they are suggestions of perceptions of experiences once had. Now if that isn't tangled, I really don't know what is. Also, "clearness" and "directness" also really depends upon what one's intent is in writing a blog or even a specific post. For political blogs such as the Lamont machines, perhaps information IS indeed disseminated in a clear and direct manner, but clear and direct only means readily readable and seemingly straightforward--this is certainly not to imply that whatever you might encounter in a blog isn't hand selected to produce an effect and fraught with personal biases and perceptions (and also agendas! gasp! not those!).
And I'm a tired old woman with a cold, so I suppose now I'll do creative writing homework and then go to bed. :)
Next topic: YouTube! For which I intend to post at least something YouTube. (Hey, Coffee--look. I endorse it, too). ;)
I have a friend who, in sophomore year, was so enthralled by his World of Warcraft game and so unwilling to suspend it (even for the moment it might take to call a helpful friend who'd volunteer to help him in a time of need) that he refrained from handing in a twelve page final paper he actually wrote, and consequently failed his class. He needed this class for his major and is taking it again this year. The worst part? He thinks it's funny. Yes, ladies and gents--this is in no way fabular. The sacrifice of reality for cyber-reality terrifies me and makes me wonder where the value once placed upon genuine human contact has really gone. No wonder, I say, so many of us are overworked, depressed, and feel isolated. Direct result of too many hours spent in solitary amusement in darkened rooms with layers and layers of grease-stained pizza boxes, sulking over a W.O.W lose ? Maybe.
...Then again, I myself have been known to disappear to my lair and IM for hours at a time and into the wee hours of the morning, rambling about many sundry inanities and confiding secrets I wouldn't tell people face to face. I'm just as guilty as my friend who failed his class, just perhaps not quite as much of an isolationist nerd. (Hey. Watch it. I said quite.)
From onewordforeskimo's post I particularly enjoyed this question:
"Do blogs disseminate information in a clear and direct way? What sort of information? What sort of blogs?"
Ah. Clear and direct. What IS clear and direct, really? Jenn says that blogs are like literature in that they are suggestions of perceptions of experiences once had. Now if that isn't tangled, I really don't know what is. Also, "clearness" and "directness" also really depends upon what one's intent is in writing a blog or even a specific post. For political blogs such as the Lamont machines, perhaps information IS indeed disseminated in a clear and direct manner, but clear and direct only means readily readable and seemingly straightforward--this is certainly not to imply that whatever you might encounter in a blog isn't hand selected to produce an effect and fraught with personal biases and perceptions (and also agendas! gasp! not those!).
And I'm a tired old woman with a cold, so I suppose now I'll do creative writing homework and then go to bed. :)
Next topic: YouTube! For which I intend to post at least something YouTube. (Hey, Coffee--look. I endorse it, too). ;)
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Like Lazarus, she rises!
My GOD I am behind with my postings.
What have I been doing, you ask? Ah. Well. Obviously lying around eating bonbons. Jeez. As if you have to ask.
No, really, though? I took a side trip to Northampton, MA this weekend to visit my best friend at Smith. As expected, we had a grand old time. I bought convincingly leather-like plastic shoes (what could be better?) and we barhopped long into the night. Martini-ed, I awakened and drove far over the speed limit back to Trinity so I could spend the day working on my thesis proposal and writing a 10-page story for creative fiction, then edit Anthony and Lourdes' vegan cookbook. It's been a busy few days, and the week before that was, too. So. That's where I've been. Shall we sally forth, then?
Google bombing is just like I like things--dirty, interesting and divisive. Over the summer, I learned from the host of phenomenal people here that bombing is "bad advertising," and is the kind of thing that makes your peers want to punch you in the throat when they see you on the street. This is what Louisa would refer to as "inorganic Search Engine Optimization." (See? I learned!). Brent would just say it's dirty shit. Same difference, really.
After that, I tried the stream-of-consciousness internet adventure Colin posed as a suggestion about 8.6 million postings ago. I began with shadowcamels, scrolled down to read about Busker's ball, and ended up with minutemen. (at minute 2:35, do they start chanting "Big fat wosah?" Because unless this is in Boston (which it isn't, because they mention Columbia), there is no excuse and I'm confused). Then I learned that unified gloating can be a healthy exercise in National solidarity. Next, I clicked on Raincoaster's profile link "humor" and saw a bunch of links to OTHER bloggers' wordpress cyber pads. I was intrigued when I saw "office dares" and joyfully cackled for the four minutes it took me to read them. I have something new to do when standing in front of the elevator--sweet.
I moved on to Wiggly's Christmas Folk vs. Bhangra post andfrom there, clicked on a comment thread that took me here--apparently our friend Wiggly (a.k.a. Daniel) has a penchant for yummy smelling grooming products (of which I am also an avid supporter). I then got sidetracked and lost myself in the Body Shop's website and, after navigating to the U.S. Page and clicking on some of my favorite items, stopped just short of whipping out my credit card to go on a totally unnecessary body lotion binge because can't everybody use to be soft? Huh? Fine. So you're saying I'm not justified? Right. Well. I suppose that's true.
I...I should just go take a shower. Yes. That's what I'll do. After all, I've still got a $400 dollar dental apparatus to pay for (sigh).
What have I been doing, you ask? Ah. Well. Obviously lying around eating bonbons. Jeez. As if you have to ask.
No, really, though? I took a side trip to Northampton, MA this weekend to visit my best friend at Smith. As expected, we had a grand old time. I bought convincingly leather-like plastic shoes (what could be better?) and we barhopped long into the night. Martini-ed, I awakened and drove far over the speed limit back to Trinity so I could spend the day working on my thesis proposal and writing a 10-page story for creative fiction, then edit Anthony and Lourdes' vegan cookbook. It's been a busy few days, and the week before that was, too. So. That's where I've been. Shall we sally forth, then?
Google bombing is just like I like things--dirty, interesting and divisive. Over the summer, I learned from the host of phenomenal people here that bombing is "bad advertising," and is the kind of thing that makes your peers want to punch you in the throat when they see you on the street. This is what Louisa would refer to as "inorganic Search Engine Optimization." (See? I learned!). Brent would just say it's dirty shit. Same difference, really.
After that, I tried the stream-of-consciousness internet adventure Colin posed as a suggestion about 8.6 million postings ago. I began with shadowcamels, scrolled down to read about Busker's ball, and ended up with minutemen. (at minute 2:35, do they start chanting "Big fat wosah?" Because unless this is in Boston (which it isn't, because they mention Columbia), there is no excuse and I'm confused). Then I learned that unified gloating can be a healthy exercise in National solidarity. Next, I clicked on Raincoaster's profile link "humor" and saw a bunch of links to OTHER bloggers' wordpress cyber pads. I was intrigued when I saw "office dares" and joyfully cackled for the four minutes it took me to read them. I have something new to do when standing in front of the elevator--sweet.
I moved on to Wiggly's Christmas Folk vs. Bhangra post andfrom there, clicked on a comment thread that took me here--apparently our friend Wiggly (a.k.a. Daniel) has a penchant for yummy smelling grooming products (of which I am also an avid supporter). I then got sidetracked and lost myself in the Body Shop's website and, after navigating to the U.S. Page and clicking on some of my favorite items, stopped just short of whipping out my credit card to go on a totally unnecessary body lotion binge because can't everybody use to be soft? Huh? Fine. So you're saying I'm not justified? Right. Well. I suppose that's true.
I...I should just go take a shower. Yes. That's what I'll do. After all, I've still got a $400 dollar dental apparatus to pay for (sigh).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
