I've already discussed on this blog about my fascination with fandoms and have decided to do my project on them. They're a fascinating part of the digital age and I think that all too often they are labeled as "weird" or "have no lives." Like any miniculture, there are bound to be confusion and misunderstanding. I want to see just exactly what fandom culture is doing to the people of today and whether it is helping or hindering understanding.
I think one of the reasons I'm so interested in it is because fandom culture isn't that different than literary analysis. I can see the eyebrows raising already, but hear me out. Literary analysis is about closely reading texts and seeing what we can learn from them. The same can be said of fandoms only in a more fanatical way. People are more excited about looking closely at the entertainment that they enjoy than what they are forced to do. I bet one could even make an argument for saying that scholars who enjoy their work are every bit a part of that book's fandom as the crazies on tumblr and pinterest.
I'm excited to start curating things because I want to first find out what other people think about it. I know what I think about it (which of course is a semiproblem: sometimes all these blog posts tend to be is what I think about something) but I need to find out what other people think. Scholars or bloggers or sociologists. Fandoms have a reputation for being crazy but do people really think of them that way? I have a pinterest board labeled "geek." It holds all of my nerdy obsessions, which means that it has over 150 pins and is by far the largest board on my pinterest. But those aren't the kinds of things that I plan on curating. I want to curate opinions.
Opinions about what? Fandoms, obviously, but beyond that I also want to curate different forms of opinions on fandoms. What fandoms think of themselves, other fandoms, and other people. What other people think of fandoms, what they think fandoms mean, whether or not they appreciate or look down upon them. I think there is a crazy amount of information on this topic, and I plan on trying to find as much of it as I can find.
Here's to a fun project! I'm excited to get started.
~note~ This post is meant for my Friday, October 18th post. I'm sorry for the tardiness.
Showing posts with label posted by Victoria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label posted by Victoria. Show all posts
Monday, October 21, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Transition
We've talked about how blog writing is different from academic writing and why that is both a good and bad thing. In Dr. Burton's blog post The Three Phases of Academic Blogging, he talks about how to best transition from regular, thought blog posts to better researched topics, until finally we reach the full blown academic paper. Hopefully this final stage will help to produce an even better, more well thought out, and clear paper than anything we (as academics) would have been able to produce otherwise. That's the idea anyway.
This past midterm was definitely a learning experience for me. During the midterm interview I confessed that, "I'm good at blogging because I'm very opinionated. It's the next step that I'm worried about." I could tell that that was NOT what they wanted to hear. It's easy to be opinionated, it's much more difficult to do sound research and talk through things clearly. It's even more difficult to make an argument that is respected by an academic community that reads hundreds of arguments from undergraduates every single day. The entire point of these blogging exercises is to practice writing and to get better at it. The point is not to simply state your opinion and walk away.
This transition from "opinion" to "scholarly" is difficult for me. It's much easier (which is why it isn't as valued) to just state your views and move on with your life. That's why comments are so rampant these days. But making something really worth reading, something that people can credit as knowledgeable and reliable, now that's a really interesting feat.
That's not to say that blogs and bloggers don't have credibility. They do. As we've discussed in class, sometimes bloggers are more highly valued than journalists and especially academics. Most everyday, casual readers looking for information would much rather read an interesting blog post on a subject than read a scholarly article on it. There's a reason for this. Mainly because reading a scholarly article can confuse you rather than help you understand, and because scholarly articles expect you to try to follow them. The article that we read for class today, about Digital Humanities, had a lot of German and French words thrown in that were never explained. It also gave references to a lot of events that the average reader wouldn't automatically pick up on. It's extremely easy to find out this information: Just google it. But something (rebellious, uncaring, stubborn) inside me just wasn't interested enough in looking for the information. This is 100% a problem with my reading ability, but at the same time I can't help but feel like the writer should be doing what he or she can to keep the reader interested. Then again, it's very possible that I simply wasn't the audience he was aiming for.
That's the good thing about quick, easy, opinionated blogging. It doesn't take any effort to follow and you can agree or disagree without there being any emotional trauma. This isn't the case with academic writing. Academic writing seems to involve a whole other sphere of understanding. When I read an peer reviewed article, I'm way more careful about simply dismissing their opinion. This is the strength of it. But there has to be a way of combining the readability and ease of blogging with the respect and concise writing of the academic paper.
This is what I have to learn.
The midterm paper was tough for me. I don't think I've ever gotten as bad a grade on a paper since I've come to BYU. This was my fault, because I didn't learn to use the mediums to my full ability. I have the writing skills to do the paper justice, but I was too enthralled with the ease of blogging. I added in some sources that I found interesting, but I talked with my reader in the simple, loose language of a blog post, rather than the precise, prestigious language of a scholar. And because of that, my paper did not carry the weight that I wanted it to. It wasn't persuasive and I lost credibility. I'm irritated with myself because I know that I could have done better. I know how to write a good academic paper. This isn't a medium I'm foreign too. I'm a senior here at BYU with my degree in English. I know how to do this. What I'm upset about is that I didn't use what I know of academic blogging to mix with the flow of an academic paper in order to make it be better than my papers have been in the past -- instead of worse.
I'm hoping that with practice, I'll be able to really transition between the two mediums and come up with a mix that I'll use with my remaining English classes. I'm with Dr. Burton and Kristen on not being satisfied with the usual research paper. I want to do better, write better, and be both entertaining and informative. The trick is just figuring out how. But I think this class is a pretty good way to start. ;)
This past midterm was definitely a learning experience for me. During the midterm interview I confessed that, "I'm good at blogging because I'm very opinionated. It's the next step that I'm worried about." I could tell that that was NOT what they wanted to hear. It's easy to be opinionated, it's much more difficult to do sound research and talk through things clearly. It's even more difficult to make an argument that is respected by an academic community that reads hundreds of arguments from undergraduates every single day. The entire point of these blogging exercises is to practice writing and to get better at it. The point is not to simply state your opinion and walk away.
This transition from "opinion" to "scholarly" is difficult for me. It's much easier (which is why it isn't as valued) to just state your views and move on with your life. That's why comments are so rampant these days. But making something really worth reading, something that people can credit as knowledgeable and reliable, now that's a really interesting feat.
That's not to say that blogs and bloggers don't have credibility. They do. As we've discussed in class, sometimes bloggers are more highly valued than journalists and especially academics. Most everyday, casual readers looking for information would much rather read an interesting blog post on a subject than read a scholarly article on it. There's a reason for this. Mainly because reading a scholarly article can confuse you rather than help you understand, and because scholarly articles expect you to try to follow them. The article that we read for class today, about Digital Humanities, had a lot of German and French words thrown in that were never explained. It also gave references to a lot of events that the average reader wouldn't automatically pick up on. It's extremely easy to find out this information: Just google it. But something (rebellious, uncaring, stubborn) inside me just wasn't interested enough in looking for the information. This is 100% a problem with my reading ability, but at the same time I can't help but feel like the writer should be doing what he or she can to keep the reader interested. Then again, it's very possible that I simply wasn't the audience he was aiming for.
That's the good thing about quick, easy, opinionated blogging. It doesn't take any effort to follow and you can agree or disagree without there being any emotional trauma. This isn't the case with academic writing. Academic writing seems to involve a whole other sphere of understanding. When I read an peer reviewed article, I'm way more careful about simply dismissing their opinion. This is the strength of it. But there has to be a way of combining the readability and ease of blogging with the respect and concise writing of the academic paper.
This is what I have to learn.
The midterm paper was tough for me. I don't think I've ever gotten as bad a grade on a paper since I've come to BYU. This was my fault, because I didn't learn to use the mediums to my full ability. I have the writing skills to do the paper justice, but I was too enthralled with the ease of blogging. I added in some sources that I found interesting, but I talked with my reader in the simple, loose language of a blog post, rather than the precise, prestigious language of a scholar. And because of that, my paper did not carry the weight that I wanted it to. It wasn't persuasive and I lost credibility. I'm irritated with myself because I know that I could have done better. I know how to write a good academic paper. This isn't a medium I'm foreign too. I'm a senior here at BYU with my degree in English. I know how to do this. What I'm upset about is that I didn't use what I know of academic blogging to mix with the flow of an academic paper in order to make it be better than my papers have been in the past -- instead of worse.
I'm hoping that with practice, I'll be able to really transition between the two mediums and come up with a mix that I'll use with my remaining English classes. I'm with Dr. Burton and Kristen on not being satisfied with the usual research paper. I want to do better, write better, and be both entertaining and informative. The trick is just figuring out how. But I think this class is a pretty good way to start. ;)
Monday, October 7, 2013
Midterm 1 (pt 1)
Index of all prior posts:
Dr. Burton gave an excellent lecture in class about the benefits of video games. He talked about video games that I have been prejudiced against and haven't wanted around me, giving examples of how immersive they are and how they can display a whole new kind of scholarly study. He also has been a constant pusher for social media (such as google+ and blogger, which we use constantly for this class) and how that can help us not only get our names out into the world but also help us with our scholarly studies and make it possible to find information that we never would have come across before. I'm already in the process of writing a paper for another class using the tools he taught us.
So how do people entertain themselves online? Is it affecting the way we live our lives in a negative or positive way? Or both? What benefits can we gain from finding new entertainment versus the negative consequences that are also present?
- Introductions and Other Noteworthy Stuff: This is where I initially introduced myself as a prospective writer and hopeful for this class.
- Queequeg -- Perfectly Content to Make You Uncomfortable: I talked about how Queequeg could be read as a representation of what is now the internet. How he broke culture norms and made people (particularly males) feel uncomfortable.
- Moby Dick: A Novel?: This is where I naively tried to force Moby Dick into being a novel the way I understood it. I have come to realize since then the complexity of the issue, and how much more I needed to learn before giving a complete judgment.
- Fandoms: I am a part of several fandoms and I talked about whether or not being a fanatic is a good or bad thing. I talk about fanfiction and ways that it can grow awry.
- Entertainment: Here I talk about why I found Moby Dick to read and whether or not Melville could have used a good editor. I discuss briefly what we consider entertaining now a days and try, once again, to categorize Moby Dick.
- Continuing With Outsourcing: Here I discuss some of the benefits of outsourcing. Unfortunately for me, a comment on the blog given by Dr. Burton points out that I may have confused the terms outsourcing with crowdsourcing. I discuss how interesting I find that large companies are turning to people to do tasks rather than experts, especially since so often I have found that people in large groups aren't as smart as individuals.
- Hipsters And Long Tails: Here I talk about Dr. Burton's post about long tails and how that correlates with the new cultural trend of hipsters. I discuss why the long tail is both beneficial for those who like to find new and obscure things, and detrimental since that means others can find them as well.
- Make Something: This is where I discuss the AMAZING presentation by the employee of blizzard. I talk about how he inspired me to go out and do something with my life, to make something to make the world a better place and use the talents I have. It is an incredible opportunity to live in the digital Age where obsessed maniacs can congregate and do amazing things never before thought possible!
- Moby Dick -- A Story To Remember: This is where I finally start making some intelligent arguments about the categorizing of Moby Dick and what it means. I find myself really appreciating the story and what it does for us. I also discuss a scholarly article about Ahab and how I agree with it and disagree with its assessment of the book.
- Post On Conference: Here I talk about how conference has influenced me to remember the good things and try to avoid bashing people or things on the internet. Edward Dube's talk influenced the way I see behavior online and how I need to push forward instead of looking back.
Dr. Burton gave an excellent lecture in class about the benefits of video games. He talked about video games that I have been prejudiced against and haven't wanted around me, giving examples of how immersive they are and how they can display a whole new kind of scholarly study. He also has been a constant pusher for social media (such as google+ and blogger, which we use constantly for this class) and how that can help us not only get our names out into the world but also help us with our scholarly studies and make it possible to find information that we never would have come across before. I'm already in the process of writing a paper for another class using the tools he taught us.
So how do people entertain themselves online? Is it affecting the way we live our lives in a negative or positive way? Or both? What benefits can we gain from finding new entertainment versus the negative consequences that are also present?
Midterm 1 (pt 2)
In my previous post I talked about how I have become incredibly interested in Entertainment in the digital age. I want to know how it affects people and whether it is a good or bad thing. Connecting this to Moby Dick shouldn't be hard at all. This book is a perfect example of the digital age's sometimes incredibly short attention span.
I talked to a lot of people about the book. Before I even picked it up for the very first time, my brother would tell me about how difficult it was to get through. He, of course, was saying this in an admiring way. He thought the book was amazing, but didn't think I would ever be able to read it. Victoria always read fantasy books that were easy to read with big print. She'd never read something as sophisticated as Moby Dick.
Ha. The joke's on him.
But, he did succeed in destroying any and all desire I had in reading the book. When I saw it on the booklist, I was extremely depressed and disheartened.
I read to be entertained. It's like my tv, I'd rather read than watch almost any TV show (with the possible exception of Supernatural, but that's a story for another time.) A lot of kids in my high school complained about how they hated reading. My sister-in-law says that she hates reading with pride in her voice. My mother in law simply states that she doesn't have enough time for something like that (but she has plenty of time for scrapbooking, explain that.) Books aren't entertaining for them. They don't care about them.
That would make Moby dick -20 on a scale of 1 to 10 in entertainment.
But pure entertainment isn't the only interesting thing about Moby Dick (or the potential lack thereof). I have said this many times, but Moby Dick reminds me of a pre-internet Wikipedia. A lot of the information I find extremely fascinating, if I wasn't reading it in novel format. I actually did look up whales on Wikipedia while reading the book because I wanted to know more about the sperm whale. Wikipedia is one of the largest websites in the world, so there must be some entertainment to reading mindless facts about things.
This might seem like a ridiculous ramble, with no inherent value to helping me write my paper. But actually this is helping me a ton. Moby Dick IS entertaining, but it likes to hide it. Just like all of the references it has in its pages, just like all of the hidden meaning we've been exploring throughout this semester, it's entertainment value has been hiding as well. It goes back to that idea of where we should categorize Moby Dick. I was very foolish at the beginning of this class, thinking that it would be easy to just stick Moby Dick in the novel category and be done with it. I didn't believe Professor Wickman when he said that it wasn't that simple. When we read Moby Dick a just a novel, it is boring. There is hardly a plot, it doesn't get exciting until the very end. But if we read Moby Dick as a Wiki, then we would find tons of information about whaling and the way whalers thought about themselves. If we read it as an allegory, we can find immense amounts of symbols that reflect our own life, even in just thinking that Queequeg represents the internet.
I could probably go on and on in this rambling manner about constitutes as entertainment within Moby Dick. I could go into fandoms, maybe find out whether there is a fandom for Moby Dick. There must be, considering how many things Dr. Burton was able to find through the Long Tail. I think that Moby Dick is difficult for the average reader to understand and appreciate, simply because it is something so different than anything they (or I) have ever come across before. I want to explore the idea of where Moby Dick should be categorized, how it can be made more accessible to people who don't think they'd be able to find it entertaining. I think that writing this paper will help me discover different things about the book that I didn't notice before, different ways that it entertained me or informed me when I didn't even realize I was doing it. I'm excited to get started.
Topics I want to tackle:
I talked to a lot of people about the book. Before I even picked it up for the very first time, my brother would tell me about how difficult it was to get through. He, of course, was saying this in an admiring way. He thought the book was amazing, but didn't think I would ever be able to read it. Victoria always read fantasy books that were easy to read with big print. She'd never read something as sophisticated as Moby Dick.
Ha. The joke's on him.
But, he did succeed in destroying any and all desire I had in reading the book. When I saw it on the booklist, I was extremely depressed and disheartened.
I read to be entertained. It's like my tv, I'd rather read than watch almost any TV show (with the possible exception of Supernatural, but that's a story for another time.) A lot of kids in my high school complained about how they hated reading. My sister-in-law says that she hates reading with pride in her voice. My mother in law simply states that she doesn't have enough time for something like that (but she has plenty of time for scrapbooking, explain that.) Books aren't entertaining for them. They don't care about them.
That would make Moby dick -20 on a scale of 1 to 10 in entertainment.
But pure entertainment isn't the only interesting thing about Moby Dick (or the potential lack thereof). I have said this many times, but Moby Dick reminds me of a pre-internet Wikipedia. A lot of the information I find extremely fascinating, if I wasn't reading it in novel format. I actually did look up whales on Wikipedia while reading the book because I wanted to know more about the sperm whale. Wikipedia is one of the largest websites in the world, so there must be some entertainment to reading mindless facts about things.
This might seem like a ridiculous ramble, with no inherent value to helping me write my paper. But actually this is helping me a ton. Moby Dick IS entertaining, but it likes to hide it. Just like all of the references it has in its pages, just like all of the hidden meaning we've been exploring throughout this semester, it's entertainment value has been hiding as well. It goes back to that idea of where we should categorize Moby Dick. I was very foolish at the beginning of this class, thinking that it would be easy to just stick Moby Dick in the novel category and be done with it. I didn't believe Professor Wickman when he said that it wasn't that simple. When we read Moby Dick a just a novel, it is boring. There is hardly a plot, it doesn't get exciting until the very end. But if we read Moby Dick as a Wiki, then we would find tons of information about whaling and the way whalers thought about themselves. If we read it as an allegory, we can find immense amounts of symbols that reflect our own life, even in just thinking that Queequeg represents the internet.
I could probably go on and on in this rambling manner about constitutes as entertainment within Moby Dick. I could go into fandoms, maybe find out whether there is a fandom for Moby Dick. There must be, considering how many things Dr. Burton was able to find through the Long Tail. I think that Moby Dick is difficult for the average reader to understand and appreciate, simply because it is something so different than anything they (or I) have ever come across before. I want to explore the idea of where Moby Dick should be categorized, how it can be made more accessible to people who don't think they'd be able to find it entertaining. I think that writing this paper will help me discover different things about the book that I didn't notice before, different ways that it entertained me or informed me when I didn't even realize I was doing it. I'm excited to get started.
Topics I want to tackle:
- Moby Dick's success and failing as a novel
- Moby Dick's association with Wikipedia
- Reading Moby Dick as an Allegory
- The Fandom of Moby dick
- Why do people keep reading it?
- Why does the average reader of Moby Dick say about the book? (Non academics)
- Scholars fascination with Moby Dick
- Being a classic doesn't make it boring.
- Why the beginning is so engaging, and why that tricks the reader into thinking the book will be something that it's not.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Post on Conference
I just want to talk a little bit about how amazing conference was today. I don't know if we're supposed to already have started on our midterm, but I'll save that for Tuesday's post. Because honestly, I just can't wait to start talking about this!
The talks today were absolutely amazing. President Uchtdorf's blew me away, and President Holland's made me cry. I'm sure everybody will be wanting to talk about those talks, so I'm going to focus on one of the talks that everybody might not have noticed, but I really really enjoyed.
Edward Dube spoke in the morning session on Saturday (today). He spoke about never looking back upon what we've accomplished and instead focusing on what we have to do in the future. He told a story of when he was young and working in the fields with his mother. He would tell her over and over to look about how much work they had done. She ignored him, just continued to work. Eventually, after he'd repeated himself several times, she said, "Edward, never look back. We have much to do."
This struck me. Right down to my core. And, ironically enough, it struck me because of digital culture.
Now, I'm talking about culture, within the digital realm. When I get on the internet, I actively avoid any mention of the church. Because I know if I find mention of the LDS church online, I won't be able to help myself and I'll look at the comments.
This is never a good idea.
I have seen so many articles and read so many comments about people bashing the church. A common phrase I hear is one of, "haven't they asked enough?" I once read a comment on a Mormon article that accused the church of trying to get into heaven through "works" instead of "grace." He accused them (us) of trying to buy our way into heaven. I also get this feeling when I read comments that talk about, "Oh, I did everything I was supposed to do, I read my scriptures, said my prayers, attended meetings, did visiting/home teaching, and I just didn't feel anything/I'm still unhappy and so I don't believe in the church anymore."
Now, don't get me wrong. I understand how painful that could be for someone. A lot of people very close to me have gone through the exact same thing, and many have fallen away. "Haven't we done enough?" they seem to ask, "It's just not doing anything." I don't normally get this confession when I talk to people face to face, but I see and read it all the time when I'm online. I guess people just feel like they can tell the internet more than they feel like they can tell an individual. It's a chance for them to spout their frustration. I can respect that, I guess. But the reason I found Elder Dube's talk to be so profound is because for me, it addresses this exact question. Haven't we done enough? No. Look at how much more we have to do.
This isn't just in the gospel, though the gospel has a huge part in it, but life in general. Haven't we done enough? Well, are we dead yet? No! We're still going. We still have so much to do because that's what we WANT to do. Life would be horrible if it was easy all the time. Books upon books have been written about this. Without trials, without constantly trying to improve, life would seem meaningless. It would become a trial in and of itself. It's like that Spongebob episode where Squidward moves into the "perfect town":
The talks today were absolutely amazing. President Uchtdorf's blew me away, and President Holland's made me cry. I'm sure everybody will be wanting to talk about those talks, so I'm going to focus on one of the talks that everybody might not have noticed, but I really really enjoyed.
Edward Dube spoke in the morning session on Saturday (today). He spoke about never looking back upon what we've accomplished and instead focusing on what we have to do in the future. He told a story of when he was young and working in the fields with his mother. He would tell her over and over to look about how much work they had done. She ignored him, just continued to work. Eventually, after he'd repeated himself several times, she said, "Edward, never look back. We have much to do."
This struck me. Right down to my core. And, ironically enough, it struck me because of digital culture.
Now, I'm talking about culture, within the digital realm. When I get on the internet, I actively avoid any mention of the church. Because I know if I find mention of the LDS church online, I won't be able to help myself and I'll look at the comments.
This is never a good idea.
I have seen so many articles and read so many comments about people bashing the church. A common phrase I hear is one of, "haven't they asked enough?" I once read a comment on a Mormon article that accused the church of trying to get into heaven through "works" instead of "grace." He accused them (us) of trying to buy our way into heaven. I also get this feeling when I read comments that talk about, "Oh, I did everything I was supposed to do, I read my scriptures, said my prayers, attended meetings, did visiting/home teaching, and I just didn't feel anything/I'm still unhappy and so I don't believe in the church anymore."
Now, don't get me wrong. I understand how painful that could be for someone. A lot of people very close to me have gone through the exact same thing, and many have fallen away. "Haven't we done enough?" they seem to ask, "It's just not doing anything." I don't normally get this confession when I talk to people face to face, but I see and read it all the time when I'm online. I guess people just feel like they can tell the internet more than they feel like they can tell an individual. It's a chance for them to spout their frustration. I can respect that, I guess. But the reason I found Elder Dube's talk to be so profound is because for me, it addresses this exact question. Haven't we done enough? No. Look at how much more we have to do.
This isn't just in the gospel, though the gospel has a huge part in it, but life in general. Haven't we done enough? Well, are we dead yet? No! We're still going. We still have so much to do because that's what we WANT to do. Life would be horrible if it was easy all the time. Books upon books have been written about this. Without trials, without constantly trying to improve, life would seem meaningless. It would become a trial in and of itself. It's like that Spongebob episode where Squidward moves into the "perfect town":
(sorry it's the speed up version. It's the only one I could find.)
This talk held a lot of inspiration, and it talked about a lot of things, but this was what really struck with me, and something I think we should remember when we go online and feel like we need to complain about something. (I've done it, I'm sure you have too.) We have so much more to do. That doesn't negate the things we've done, that doesn't make it worthless or make us feel like we shouldn't be proud of those things, but we still have so much to do! And if we didn't, then, what would we do instead?
I'm so thankful for conference. I can't wait for the next session.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Moby Dick -- A Story to Remember
While reading Moby Dick, I can't imagine anyone having a particular affinity for Captain Ahab. Driven, mad, and intent upon only his revenge, he doesn't strike me as the most sympathetic character of the book. That title might go to Starbuck or Queequeg before it went to him. Yet, as I was doing a little research for this post, I found an article that talked about "The Tragic Meaning of Moby Dick" (written by Henry Myers and published by New England Quarterly Inc). I found the article interesting, because for the first time, someone was casting Ahab in a noble light. Myers was arguing that the story isn't the allegory that we all thought it was, but rather that it was the tale about a man finding the meaning of his own life.
Now, I don't think I'm qualified to say whether or not Myers was right. There seems to be plenty of allegory within the book as well, but I think it's interesting that he makes Ahab into a hero, or at least the heart of the story. In the last few chapters of the book, there seemed to be nothing but foreshadowing. In "The Hat" Chapter 130, a bird flies up to Ahab and "was before the old man's eyes, the long hooked bill at his head: with a scream, the black hawk darted away with his prize" (476). Before that there was a huge storm that rearranged all the compasses, they met with another boat that imploringly asked for their aid, and Ahab rejected them. All of them, one by one, warning the crew and their captain that what they were doing wasn't right, that they should head back and forget Moby Dick. But Captain Ahab continues, and by doing so, is the death of his entire crew.
But, Myers makes the argument that, "Melville felt that whatever essential meaning lies in Moby Dick could be found in the life of a living Ahab by an Ahab himself." (Myers 19). He argues that all of the meaning in the story comes from Ahab, rather than from the tiny allegorical notions that we've been finding so fascinating.
Now, I don't think I'm qualified to say whether or not Myers was right. There seems to be plenty of allegory within the book as well, but I think it's interesting that he makes Ahab into a hero, or at least the heart of the story. In the last few chapters of the book, there seemed to be nothing but foreshadowing. In "The Hat" Chapter 130, a bird flies up to Ahab and "was before the old man's eyes, the long hooked bill at his head: with a scream, the black hawk darted away with his prize" (476). Before that there was a huge storm that rearranged all the compasses, they met with another boat that imploringly asked for their aid, and Ahab rejected them. All of them, one by one, warning the crew and their captain that what they were doing wasn't right, that they should head back and forget Moby Dick. But Captain Ahab continues, and by doing so, is the death of his entire crew.
 |
| (pezi.com) by Anthony Saxman |
I'm not sure I believe this, simply because Ahab had so many opportunities to turn back but refused to do so. If he is the hero of the story, then it is simply as a cautionary tail. We talked about how Moby Dick was like a machine, about how the long winded sections of the book help to make the single sentences of plot that much more meaningful. Maybe that's the way with Ahab as well. We went over how they killed the great whales over and over again, going into minute detail and talking about the drudgery of constantly having to squeeze the oil out of the whale's fat only to discard it and need to start again. But Ahab's death, the captain of the ship, the driver of the plot, only gets a few lines to describe his death, "the line ran through the groove; -- ran foul. Ahab stooped to clear it; he did clear it; but the flying turn caught him round the neck, and voicelessly as Turkish mutes bowstring their victim, he was shot out of the boat, ere the crew knew he was gone." (507). Hardly the death of a hero.
Yet, as I went back looking for that quote, I came across another one, one that I had forgotten about. Moby Dick had just sunk the Pequod and Ahab shouts out in agaony, "Death-glorious ship! must ye then perish, and without me? Am I cut off from the last fond pride of meanest shipwrecked captains?" (507) I think, I hope, that this is the moment that Ahab realizes his mistake. That he realizes that there is more to life than hunting down lost pride. He lost all of it again, when Moby Dick sank his ship and he wasn't even there to be with her when she went down.
Myers argues that the critics didn't understand the form of the story when they first read it, and that's why they go into allegory and try to understand the hidden meanings of what Melville might have been trying to say. That the story was just about Ahab and his obsession, that the whale was just a whale, the ship just a ship. I think I can agree with that to an extent. I think we could learn a lot from taking the story literally. We can learn the regret of a man who realized that he had made a mistake only moments before his death, and only after the most precious thing he'd been entrusted with had been destroyed. But I also think the story is a tad allegorical. Maybe not because Melville wanted it to be, but because we have decided it is. The machine that is Moby Dick, what it has been able to accomplish, has captivated audiences for over a hundred years. There's only so much you can say about a simple plot of revenge. There is a lot more you can say about the allegorical content of the whiteness of the whale.
So what does that mean?
Honestly? I think it means that Moby Dick was an exceptional piece. That there is no way to really understand it exactly the way the author meant it to be understood, or even exactly the way the person next to you understood it. It speaks to its audience in different ways, delivering different lessons that people can get together and talk about. It is something that has layers upon layers of dissection material, it will never get old because there will always be something to say, some new passage to interpret. And that is what makes it so interesting. I'm glad to have read it.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Make Something
I went to the Blizzard guy's presentation today. I have to admit that I wasn't really expecting much. I know that he was an English major (like myself) but even that couldn't really excite me. My husband was so excited, he wants to get an internship at blizzard and has already been to one of the presentations this particular guy had given during the summer. I was happy to see him so thrilled, but I still couldn't muscle much enthusiasm for the presentation.
Which is why it completely blew my mind.
I'm not a huge fan of Blizzard. I like StarCraft, but other than that they have always seemed a little subpar to me. My husband loves them (as previously stated) but if everyone there has the same attitude as the man who presented today, then I take back every bad thing I ever said about them.
The presentation was not about Blizzard. It was about creation. It was about saving the world and doing what you love to do to make that happen. As he was talking, I felt the passion he felt for the topic, and I felt an old stirring within myself. I'm not really into playing or making video games. I'm probably not going to be the person that solves the energy crisis or finds a way to preserve our fresh water. No, the only talent I've ever been really passionate about is writing.
Writing. It was amazing how people were getting different messages from what he was saying. Every word resonated with my husband. I could see it in his face. I could see his desire to create and make a difference in this world. He wants to make art, he wants to make beautiful pieces that touch the souls of his players, the way that he was touched when he was a child and the way he is touched now when he plays his games. He wants to inspire people the way he was inspired, and every word hit him with the strength of a meteor. But it's different for me. When I write, there is no art to make it shine, there is no music, no graphics, nothing besides ideas and words. But I felt the power of this idea as well.
To clarify, what he was talking about was that each and every person in that room (and on byu campus/the world) has a particular talent. Because of the internet, we can connect to people in a way that was never possible before, and find people that have our same talents and interests. Obsessed people, he called them. And obsessed people can accomplish much more than just the random bum that's been hired to do it. These people, the people who really care, are the ones that will solve all of the problems in the world. These people, us, are the ones that will take that talent and make the world a better place. Make true art. Make beautiful things simply for the sake of making something beautiful. His eyes filled with tears as he was talking about this. His passion for it filled the room, and I think it moved everybody.
So, as I sat there, listening, I felt a desire stirring within myself. The desire to create. Almost instantly all of the doubt that always comes when I think I can do something started to resurface. Who are you, it asked, to think that with words, with a story, you could change anyone? Who are you to be self centered? And I realized that I don't need to move or touch anyone. I don't need to please anyone with my words and my ideas except me. I need to create. Not because people will tell me how wonderful I am, but because I will feel wonderful. Not because anyone will appreciate what I do, but because I will appreciate what I do. Creation, connection, art, beauty, it's within the ability of all of us. And by doing what we want, we might just accidentally make the world a better place in the process. And isn't that amazing?
Which is why it completely blew my mind.
I'm not a huge fan of Blizzard. I like StarCraft, but other than that they have always seemed a little subpar to me. My husband loves them (as previously stated) but if everyone there has the same attitude as the man who presented today, then I take back every bad thing I ever said about them.
The presentation was not about Blizzard. It was about creation. It was about saving the world and doing what you love to do to make that happen. As he was talking, I felt the passion he felt for the topic, and I felt an old stirring within myself. I'm not really into playing or making video games. I'm probably not going to be the person that solves the energy crisis or finds a way to preserve our fresh water. No, the only talent I've ever been really passionate about is writing.
Writing. It was amazing how people were getting different messages from what he was saying. Every word resonated with my husband. I could see it in his face. I could see his desire to create and make a difference in this world. He wants to make art, he wants to make beautiful pieces that touch the souls of his players, the way that he was touched when he was a child and the way he is touched now when he plays his games. He wants to inspire people the way he was inspired, and every word hit him with the strength of a meteor. But it's different for me. When I write, there is no art to make it shine, there is no music, no graphics, nothing besides ideas and words. But I felt the power of this idea as well.
To clarify, what he was talking about was that each and every person in that room (and on byu campus/the world) has a particular talent. Because of the internet, we can connect to people in a way that was never possible before, and find people that have our same talents and interests. Obsessed people, he called them. And obsessed people can accomplish much more than just the random bum that's been hired to do it. These people, the people who really care, are the ones that will solve all of the problems in the world. These people, us, are the ones that will take that talent and make the world a better place. Make true art. Make beautiful things simply for the sake of making something beautiful. His eyes filled with tears as he was talking about this. His passion for it filled the room, and I think it moved everybody.
So, as I sat there, listening, I felt a desire stirring within myself. The desire to create. Almost instantly all of the doubt that always comes when I think I can do something started to resurface. Who are you, it asked, to think that with words, with a story, you could change anyone? Who are you to be self centered? And I realized that I don't need to move or touch anyone. I don't need to please anyone with my words and my ideas except me. I need to create. Not because people will tell me how wonderful I am, but because I will feel wonderful. Not because anyone will appreciate what I do, but because I will appreciate what I do. Creation, connection, art, beauty, it's within the ability of all of us. And by doing what we want, we might just accidentally make the world a better place in the process. And isn't that amazing?
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Hipsters and Long Tails
I just read Professor Burton's post about long tails, and it fascinated me in a lot of different ways. I guess I have never thought about how prominent this idea is in Internet culture. The one that immediately entered my head while reading through the post was hipsters. I don't know if a lot of people came to that same conclusion, but all I could think of while Professor Burton was talking about going through the iTunes store and going deeper in deeper is how useful this must be to hipsters and others who like to listen to really obscure, unknown music.
For the sake of clarity, a hipster is someone who likes things that nobody else likes. The idea is that if people like it, then it must be bad, and the more obscure something is then the better it is. This goes right along with the long tail idea, because they go for the things that are "never hit." A few years ago, this would be impossible. If a song didn't get on the charts, it stopped circulating, stopped being produced and might as well have disappeared forever. Now, however, people can go deeper and deeper into a song library to find more and more interesting songs. Some of them are real gems too. Of course, this also means that the deeper you go the more likely you are to accidentally make something that was obscure become really unknown. This is what I like to call the bane of the hipster.
The Long Tail can work in both directions. It can help people find really obscure things and enjoy them while nobody else does, or it can help something that might have never been discovered make it really big. Social Media helped to make "The Strike" a local band from Utah big enough to perform at the Stadium of Fire this year. I was there and they were amazing! Something like that never would have been able to happen without social media (granted there was a contest involved, but it wouldn't have spread as far if social media hadn't been a part of it) You can check out their facebook page here.
I guess the point is that the long tail has already influenced our subcultures in more than just getting more people to buy different things. It's also helped to inspire an entire way of life, and a hate group (there are plenty of people who hate hipsters.) I think that's pretty amazing.
For the sake of clarity, a hipster is someone who likes things that nobody else likes. The idea is that if people like it, then it must be bad, and the more obscure something is then the better it is. This goes right along with the long tail idea, because they go for the things that are "never hit." A few years ago, this would be impossible. If a song didn't get on the charts, it stopped circulating, stopped being produced and might as well have disappeared forever. Now, however, people can go deeper and deeper into a song library to find more and more interesting songs. Some of them are real gems too. Of course, this also means that the deeper you go the more likely you are to accidentally make something that was obscure become really unknown. This is what I like to call the bane of the hipster.
The Long Tail can work in both directions. It can help people find really obscure things and enjoy them while nobody else does, or it can help something that might have never been discovered make it really big. Social Media helped to make "The Strike" a local band from Utah big enough to perform at the Stadium of Fire this year. I was there and they were amazing! Something like that never would have been able to happen without social media (granted there was a contest involved, but it wouldn't have spread as far if social media hadn't been a part of it) You can check out their facebook page here.
I guess the point is that the long tail has already influenced our subcultures in more than just getting more people to buy different things. It's also helped to inspire an entire way of life, and a hate group (there are plenty of people who hate hipsters.) I think that's pretty amazing.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Continuing with Outsourcing
So, I've been reading a lot of the posts about outsourcing and thought I would continue along that train of thought.
It reminds me of what we were talking about in class last time, the fact that the majority of a random population can be more accurate than even experts. I guess we've always known this in some form or another, but it's interesting to see how it actually is true. I mean, a whole bunch of guys screaming at a TV football game claim to know better than the coach, but nobody actually believes them. Who knows though, maybe they do.
And who knows what we'll learn tomorrow. And who knows what people will be able to do when everyone stops following the hive mind and starts thinking for themselves. That's something that I think outsourcing does really well. It takes the collective "persons" of the population and puts them together. And instead of everyone following one leader or turning into panicky animals, they think for themselves and get things done. Like with New Family Search. Thousands of people working together to make something amazing.
I'm sure all of us have had experiences with the bishop or our wards talking about doing indexing for New Family Search. It's a great opportunity to do service, but also gets the church a ton of free labor. Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliant of them, especially since so many people are willing to do it. I'm just amazed that it actually works. I'm amazed that, just like Kristin said, people are willing to do so much for free. Not just with their programming, but with any of their skills.
It reminds me of what we were talking about in class last time, the fact that the majority of a random population can be more accurate than even experts. I guess we've always known this in some form or another, but it's interesting to see how it actually is true. I mean, a whole bunch of guys screaming at a TV football game claim to know better than the coach, but nobody actually believes them. Who knows though, maybe they do.
I think that the idea of outsourcing is incredibly revolutionary. We used to only rely on expert advice, and maybe only a little bit on our neighbors experience. Or at least that's how it would appear to be. I remember listening in one of my science classes at the very beginning of college, and hearing them say, "I don't understand why people keep arguing about global warming. It's real. We've proven it a million times. It's not really up for discussion anymore." But it still is. Of course, in that example we could argue all day over whether the population or the experts are correct (ignoring the fact that the public appears to still be split on the issue, at least last time I checked) but the idea that experts can be circumvented amazes me. And what's more, the fact that they can be circumvented and be RIGHT.
However, I did want to talk a little bit about the times where outsourcing can be a problem. Mainly on the issues where you really do need to have professional advice. It's easy to go online and google your symptoms and convince yourself that you have cancer, or to find a whole bunch of extremely uneducated comments about Miss America on twitter. So not all of our information and knowledge should come from the masses, but outsourcing to get free labor is good. I remember that line from MIB, when Kay says,
And who knows what we'll learn tomorrow. And who knows what people will be able to do when everyone stops following the hive mind and starts thinking for themselves. That's something that I think outsourcing does really well. It takes the collective "persons" of the population and puts them together. And instead of everyone following one leader or turning into panicky animals, they think for themselves and get things done. Like with New Family Search. Thousands of people working together to make something amazing.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Entertainment
We've been talking a lot about categories and where Moby Dick should be placed. In my previous post about it, I claimed it to be a novel because that's what I understood about it at the time, but as I continued reading it I found myself thinking over and over, "Melville could have used a good editor." I found myself balking at encyclopedia type entries, the wandering attitude of the narrator and the changing of writing style. I felt like if this book were to be published today, it would never get through. A publisher would tear it apart, cut it in half, and then tell Melville that he needs to take out another 2/3 to get it publishable. "Nobody will read it," I can imagine them saying, "it's not entertaining."
We know that Moby Dick wasn't really popular when it first came out, but somehow it started to get attention during WWI. I don't know anyone who was alive during WWI so I can only assume what they must have been thinking. Perhaps they liked the rambling, perhaps it connected to them in a way that it hadn't connected before, but now? Today? We're still studying it, yet every time I've taken it out to read somebody has commented, "Wow, you're reading Moby Dick? That book is so boring." Now, a few of them mentioned that they enjoyed the scholarly aspect of it. A lot of us commented when we first began the book that we're all enjoying it a lot more than we thought we would, but is the book entertaining? Is it enjoyable for a lazy Sunday afternoon when we're just looking for a fun, high speed adventure?
No.
So could Melville have used a good editor? During class, I compared Moby Dick to a Wikipedia article gone wrong. He was using publishing as categories for whales, jumping to theater and stage writing, along with other seemingly random dashing about, like a bunch of links that we had no control over. They just continued to be clicked. But how much information is there if we, or more appropriately -- I, had just been willing to calm down, focus a little more, and stop trying to race through it? How much entertainment can be found within those difficult, rambling passages?
I could never guess at exactly what Melville was wanting to express when he wrote the book, and perhaps he could have used someone there to tell him to cut back. But on the other hand, maybe he was trying to do something completely different. Something uncategorizable. Something that's a bit like the Internet. Or, maybe he was just trying to write a metaphor about how difficult it is to read Moby Dick.
We know that Moby Dick wasn't really popular when it first came out, but somehow it started to get attention during WWI. I don't know anyone who was alive during WWI so I can only assume what they must have been thinking. Perhaps they liked the rambling, perhaps it connected to them in a way that it hadn't connected before, but now? Today? We're still studying it, yet every time I've taken it out to read somebody has commented, "Wow, you're reading Moby Dick? That book is so boring." Now, a few of them mentioned that they enjoyed the scholarly aspect of it. A lot of us commented when we first began the book that we're all enjoying it a lot more than we thought we would, but is the book entertaining? Is it enjoyable for a lazy Sunday afternoon when we're just looking for a fun, high speed adventure?
No.
So could Melville have used a good editor? During class, I compared Moby Dick to a Wikipedia article gone wrong. He was using publishing as categories for whales, jumping to theater and stage writing, along with other seemingly random dashing about, like a bunch of links that we had no control over. They just continued to be clicked. But how much information is there if we, or more appropriately -- I, had just been willing to calm down, focus a little more, and stop trying to race through it? How much entertainment can be found within those difficult, rambling passages?
I could never guess at exactly what Melville was wanting to express when he wrote the book, and perhaps he could have used someone there to tell him to cut back. But on the other hand, maybe he was trying to do something completely different. Something uncategorizable. Something that's a bit like the Internet. Or, maybe he was just trying to write a metaphor about how difficult it is to read Moby Dick.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Fandoms
During our discussion on Wednesday we talked about the various subgroups on the internet. I found myself drawn to the subgroup that all too often I have found myself identifying with and shying away from when I spend my leisure activities on the Web.
My online network, as the term was phrased in class, would have to be the fandom. This kind of embarrasses me because there can be quite the stigma on "fan groups." After all, fan is shot for "Fanatic" and for a lot of people within this group, that term could not be more accurate. I use pintrest a lot and am also an occasional user of tumblr. I've found that even though there are so many amazing opportunities to connect with other people on the internet, the people that I really want to connect with are the ones that share the same interests as me. And unfortunately for my popularity, that includes tv shows, books, and movies.
Fan groups can be really awesome, and really horrible. There is a part of the "fan culture" called "shipping" which is when a person "ships" for the relationship between two different characters. Most of the time, the ship is considered sexual, though there have been times where I've come across ships that focus only on the relationship, rather than the sexual aspect of it. Sometimes this part of the culture can be entertaining and fun, but all too often it becomes disturbing, uncomfortable, and sometimes downright pornographic. Something that starts off as a simple enjoyment of media can twist into really disturbing stuff.
But on the other hand, a lot of fans find a real support system within their fandom, they can enjoy time together, talk about the show and what happened and look through conspiracy theories and come up with theories of their own. I guess it just goes to show that no matter what it is, there are good and bad aspects to it.
I like to think that the area of fandom that I go into is pretty good and pretty high standard, but then again, maybe I'm getting sucked into the darkness without even knowing about it! Is it possible to have a separation between good and bad things within the same genre? Is it possible to only be a "little bit" of a fanatic?
My online network, as the term was phrased in class, would have to be the fandom. This kind of embarrasses me because there can be quite the stigma on "fan groups." After all, fan is shot for "Fanatic" and for a lot of people within this group, that term could not be more accurate. I use pintrest a lot and am also an occasional user of tumblr. I've found that even though there are so many amazing opportunities to connect with other people on the internet, the people that I really want to connect with are the ones that share the same interests as me. And unfortunately for my popularity, that includes tv shows, books, and movies.
Fan groups can be really awesome, and really horrible. There is a part of the "fan culture" called "shipping" which is when a person "ships" for the relationship between two different characters. Most of the time, the ship is considered sexual, though there have been times where I've come across ships that focus only on the relationship, rather than the sexual aspect of it. Sometimes this part of the culture can be entertaining and fun, but all too often it becomes disturbing, uncomfortable, and sometimes downright pornographic. Something that starts off as a simple enjoyment of media can twist into really disturbing stuff.
But on the other hand, a lot of fans find a real support system within their fandom, they can enjoy time together, talk about the show and what happened and look through conspiracy theories and come up with theories of their own. I guess it just goes to show that no matter what it is, there are good and bad aspects to it.
I like to think that the area of fandom that I go into is pretty good and pretty high standard, but then again, maybe I'm getting sucked into the darkness without even knowing about it! Is it possible to have a separation between good and bad things within the same genre? Is it possible to only be a "little bit" of a fanatic?
Monday, September 9, 2013
Moby Dick: A Novel?
Now, obviously, this reaction doesn't do a very good job of actually giving a clear definition of what a novel is and why Moby Dick "should" be classified as one. I typed in "novel" at google and got the definition "a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism." Well, Moby Dick is definitely book length. And, though based on semi real events, it's still been fictionalized. It also has a degree of realism, so the answer is simple, right? It's obviously a novel.
If only things were that simple. We haven't gotten so far into the book that the real heavy descriptions on whaling and the ship that sound encyclopedic in nature and feel more like a how-to manual rather than a story driven by plot. Perhaps the attitude toward the book will change when it isn't conforming to what we as students and instructors understand a novel to be. Once Ishmael isn't making hilarious commentary on everything and instead is trying to teach the audience about a practice that was outlawed years ago we might change our minds on whether or not this can be classified as an entertaining read.
But that makes me wonder whether we can even really classify what a novel is in the first place. Obviously the definition has changed over the centuries. As mentioned in class, historians usually pinpoint the beginning of the novel in the 18th century, while others argue that novels are obviously found way before than. We are arbitrarily trying to confine the works of imagination and the understanding of individuals who have written about whatever tickles their fancy. The definition I cited above tries to limit novels to what has "some degree of realism" so does that not include fantasy novels and sci fi novels? Perhaps we have gone down the wrong path with constantly trying to categorize everything. Literature comes in as many shapes as human beings. No two think or say exactly the same thing, which when you think about it is incredible! There are 26 letters in the alphabet and no two books (besides reprints, come on guys) that are exactly the same. Maybe we should stop trying to force our literature into arbitrary categories and instead enjoy the richness for what it is -- the ideas and images of an individual as unique and different as ourselves.
Then again. Categorizing things makes it a lot easier to study. . .#firstworldproblems ;)
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Queequeg - Perfectly Content to Make You Uncomfortable
Hey! I'm jumping ahead a little bit. I know not everyone is done with their introductions but I just finished the Moby Dick reading assignment and really want to talk about it.
 |
| That would be terrifying |
I've heard about Moby Dick throughout my life. I'm pretty sure we all have. But when I started the book I had no idea that it would talk about such complex issues. Specifically in the character of Queequeg. Here is a character that I find infinitely more complex, interesting, and engaging than any of the other characters I've met so far in the book. His very existence brings multiple problems into light that reflect not just the society of the day, but also the society that we live in today. His introduction was vivid and left a clear picture in my mind. Tattooed, large, pagan and a cannibal, he isn't what might be considered the "ideal" bedmate. I loved how Ishmael freaked out at the idea of sharing a bed with anyone, before he even knew that Queequeg was a "savage" or a "cannibal." That so clearly reflects the way people (men in particular) react to such things, even today. I know of several men who would rather sleep on the hard floor than share a bed with another man.
Queequeg seems to me to be a representation of everything that makes Christians and men uncomfortable. I love it. Ishmael talks about extremely important issues that surrounded the day - and now- about religion and whether or not it's "okay" not to be Christian. He says that he shouldn't judge other people because they are of a different religion. This is amazing, simply because of the time this book was written. But besides religion, Queequeg is just an awkward character. Awkward meaning he pushes the social boundaries that our society has put in place. He cuddles with a strange man, embraces him and calls them married once they've become friends, and also offers Ishmael the opportunity to pray to his god. He's everything that makes men uncomfortable.
I'm deeply invested in this character already. Even though this book was obviously written way before the Internet, I feel like Queequeg could be a metaphor for it. A little awkward, a little unruly, and constantly reminding you (sometimes without trying) that we can't really judge other people. Of course, there is the dark side of the internet, but we'll see if Queequeg embodies that portion as well.
.jpg) |
| Gotta admit, this would make me uncomfortable too |
I'm deeply invested in this character already. Even though this book was obviously written way before the Internet, I feel like Queequeg could be a metaphor for it. A little awkward, a little unruly, and constantly reminding you (sometimes without trying) that we can't really judge other people. Of course, there is the dark side of the internet, but we'll see if Queequeg embodies that portion as well.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Introductions and Other Noteworthy Stuff.
I'm an English major with a Communications minor still wondering whether I'm ever going to be able to get a job once I graduate. Every once in a while I look at the things I'm interested in and think, "Yep, I've successfully made myself completely unemployable." I hope I'm wrong, but then again if I can't find a job than that will only give me an excuse to really buckle down and start writing my stories. I'm a self-proclaimed author, having written 3 1/2 novels (one is in progress. . .) and published none of them. I used to keep a "story blog" but haven't updated it in a long time. With any luck, that will soon change. I'm hoping that the expansion of the web will help me get my foot in the door and my words out there someday, but in my heart of hearts I'm still hoping to get published in the traditional manner; with a hardcover copy sitting on display in bookstores.
My experience with digital media hasn't been very extensive. My mom wouldn't even let me get on closed chat rooms with my friends when I was in High School. I wasn't allowed to get a facebook until after I graduated and I still don't have a phone that can get online. As I delved into the electronic world once I arrived in college my analysis of the digital world was less-than-positive. I would read articles online and then scroll down into the comments and read what the people of the internet had to say. Needless to remark, my faith in humanity was frequently questioned until I wasn't sure whether I wanted to be online at all. Or if I was, maybe I would just spend all of my time on tumblr looking at pictures of cats.
But, like everything, I've come to the realization that the internet has its share of good things and bad things. It's wonderful that people can share their ideas without the constant rejection from the "gatekeepers" as well as express what they think. Sometimes people don't agree, but that's life and it's important to keep that information going. At least, that's what I'm starting to think. Hopefully I'll be able to become more amiable minded as long as I stay away from the comments on political articles.
Anyway, I'm excited for this class! I'm excited to read Moby Dick and find out how it correlates with what we're learning, as well as learn more about the digital age and how I can integrate myself into it without being too thoroughly left behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)