Wednesday, September 30, 2009
I keep trying to bridge this gap between writing essays and making posts.
When I wrote in my own livejournal, I had the same prolix problem. I would write beautiful entries, but they'd reach a length when I would sometimes wonder if people made it through to the end. As a friend of mine once said, "you write really well, but I never read them all to the end," and added a little laugh. However, I don't know how to divvy up my thoughts in a way which is any more brief. I don't want to condense myself so much that I lose an important logical step in my thinking.
I wonder about the quality of my posts as well. Twilight is so intensely vapid. Once I get over how shapeless Bella and Edward are, I imagine I can emerge into a new area. Once I begun discussing how they interact, and the impressions that a critical-thinking reader might derive from the text, I might revive what I feel has been dampened. I hope I am keeping in tune with my mission statement to deliver intelligent reasons against the book and not fiery complaints. Complaints are impotent, clever argument is beyond powerful.
Pictures present a problem, because I normally never use pictures in my writing. I know visuals would be an asset to my longer posts... but how much of one?
I keep noticing things to revise, and things to take apart and rebuild. But, the assignment is due in less than an hour. It will have to serve as is. I'll quell my perfectionism for a day or so, but the moment I have time, whether over the weekend or in between classes, I will be working on this blog. I want it to be something I'm more than proud of, I definitely have the potential to take it to that level.
With the time between now and when the next eight entries are due there ought to be massive changes to these first four entries. Even though, there is a chance that I might find I've done very nice job already and leave some things alone. Sometimes however, I've already hit my stride and I don't realize it. And there are parts of the blog I'm very proud of, I especially enjoy my second post.
Time is definitely a leading issue as applies to quality. I like to very slowly build up my posts on another word processor where I can see each paragraph and roughly each word. I can change their order and rearrange the sentences until I have something much more polished than before. But, the downside is, this can take hours. I've spent so much time rearranging things that I might have stolen time away from writing down other ideas. I would like to go back and find these other ideas, if they are there, and compare them with what I've already posted. If they are comparatively better, I might tweak the old posts. Or they could go in new posts all on their own.
Either way, I am excited to keep going with this blog. I enjoyed writing it very much.
I wait with bated breath for the next assignment...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I’m well-read, and a bit of an outsider: this is why I ought to be listened to on this subject matter. I can use my own gender-bending objectivity as a foil for this culture that mutely abides by rules which trivialize both sex and the sexes. I can use my knowledge of other books to announce Twilight’s inferiority as a novel to the world as a statement of fact.
I intend to gain my audiences trust post by post. I want to build a relationship with my readers through my posts by not only showcasing and fulfilling my purpose, but doing it well. I can be spellbindingly thorough and persuasive. Even if I don’t win them over to agreeing with me with the first post, they might come back for the post that could do the trick. I hope to establish myself as a blogger of quality, and not just another pretty phrase.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I’ve been considering merging my two obsessions into one. Throughout my life I’ve had an interest in gender roles, in part because I so often don’t observe them, and I’m having a torrid love affair with English/American Literature.
I also loathe my generation’s fascination with the novel by Stephanie Meyer, Twilight. It is the only book in the series I’ve ever read. I read it at a friend’s hest and from the first page I just couldn’t stand it, but I did finish it, hoping with each turned page it would get a little bit better. I also saw the film with some friends, and managed to catch some of the dialouge through all of our saturnine comments. I cannot begin to describe how much I dislike both the book and the film, on so many levels, but particularly from the standpoint of good writing and gender roles. It might be interesting to explore this blockbuster film, as well as the book, through these lenses.
I'd like to analyze Bella, the female lead's character, and her relationship with Edward, the leading male, in a number of scenes both in the book and the film. Particularly those when Bella is shown to be so pathetic and yet Edward, some ubermensch, is interested in her. It's very interesting that it's a male vampire and a female human; it's very interesting that Edward is something of a male ideal nowadays. I want to know why. I also want to know why Edward loves Bella so much in return for her piteous mediocrity. What do these things say about being a man? About being a woman?
What do these things say about being a man? About being a woman?
There’s certainly a surplus of information out there about these bloodsuckers. I don’t think I’d have any trouble providing myself with examples to analyze. Also, my audience would know full well what I was talking about even if I inexactly allude to “that scene in the hospital” or "that scene in the parking lot."
I’ll write for “myself and strangers” first.
I’ll write for the fans of the series as well as the critics, either way those who’ve read the book and/or seen the movie regardless of their reactions.
The critics and the fans want to see the same things, but for different reasons. The critics, in this vampire-crazed culture, would like to know that they are not mad for kneeling at the Cult of the Cullens. Some of them might want educated estimates on why the film is garbage to edify their wordless disgust for the film, and the series as a lump sum.
Yet, interestingly, in attacking an object you support your allies’ cause, but sponsor your opponents. My critic of this film will embolden the zeal of its fans; they will have a perfect opportunity to scream their love of these empty fictional characters at the top of their lungs or their CAPS LOCK!!! In this way, I’ll give them something to look forward to as well.
Either audience wants to see a hard and swift critique. Neither would be interested in my going soft on the film. They probably wouldn’t want me to be soft on the actors or the author, Stephanie Meyer, herself. But, I’ll have to be: I’m disgusted by the message, not those who conveyed it, and certainly Meyer can improve her literary craft—perhaps even by reading my blog!
I’ll give my blog my own special touch. I’m mordacious, but highly lovable. I’m a barbed teddy bear.
I can be a little tangential, but the audience will come away with something. The writing will not be purely critical, like I said, I’ll show some clemency, and I’ll stray from querulous rants and dopey complaints. I’ll stick with something smart, swift and thorough in my delivery. I am savage, yet I’m a savage optimist. There will be moments when, even in my thorniest posts when the one pearl of wisdom somewhere in all of that tasteless melodrama catches my attention and I mention it to the reader. After all, they say nowadays that even black holes give off the briefest flickers of light.
I’m thinking of titles such as
- “Illuminating Twilight”
- “Why I Hate Edward Cullen”
- "Empirical & Vampirical"
- or, “Glittering Vampires. O Rly?”
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Mr. Jalopy and I both enjoy the “[f]ast and loose” ambience of blogging. Sometimes I’ll write a blog post that turns into a promising short story or something I could better use for class, just because the swift and lax setting of the blog brought out my perfect pith or pathos. Such entries I secret away instead of casting them off into the ether, I’d rather publish them in print than let them languish online which puts my own perspective of “on print vs. blog writing” in a very interesting place.
Mr. Jalopy also wrote that “I am writing for my buddies.” I understand this is what he might bear in mind while he writes for his blog. But, with a blog so successful, and with such a massive following, it might be more accurate to quote Gertrude Stein: “I am writing for myself and strangers…”
There is also the mentioning of being “un-Google-able.” This is an alarmingly intriguing remark. On one hand, it expresses the consequences of having personal information out on the web, and on the other it also expresses a technology which would let any user find that information. It’s interesting Google is synonymous with this invasion of privacy in this statement.
Stefanac highlights several components that go into a good blog, including “personality.” I hope to use his recipe for my own blogging success in this project. I think my personality is too loud for this life, it certainly won’t be muffled or blurred over by virtual realtiy.
To the blogosphere!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
However, I find myself in disagreement with Blood and Greg Ruggiero’s ideas about definitions of media, and what media should be. I think that definitions of media are not limited to the desperate either-or of “corporate” or “public.” These two words seem very deceiving to me. Who is dependent on whom? Is a corporation all powerful? Especially if it is fed on the consumer’s money?
If one’s alternative views aren’t catching “mainstream” attention one might aim one’s displeasure at the public than the corporations. Corporations are not to blame, the public’s demands are. If people want to watch Montel instead of Marlowe then why should one blame the corporation if there is no TV version of Doctor Faustus? Changing the shape of media isn’t a crusade to adjust definitions, but desires.
One can take over the media and replace popular programs with poetry readings but people might decide to turn off their television sets. When people are willing to pay for something more than tedious talkshows and bleak sitcoms, then there will be a media revolution. The question of course being, how does one persuade others from Oprah to opera?
As for "consumers" and making them "creators." Consumers can be creators already. Everyone who has “made it” was once a consumer. The truth of people's passivity might be that not everyone is inclined to be a creator.
Being a creator is a risky business in any given society regardless of who “controls” the media, or what its definition happens to be. Being a creator involves time, effort and confidence. It involves sticking your neck out, showing a little leg and not being guaranteed a success. How many people jump at such a barbed opportunity?
Disagreements aside, I do understand and empathize with Blood’s interest in blogs and blogging. I only just started my own process blog here, and I do have a “livejournal” that I still frequent.
I keep my own journal, primarily because I like to read the blogs of my friends. I especially enjoy turning back through the posts, to see what they’ve said of themselves or others in the past. You catch phrases like “cigarettes are disgusting” written in dated entries by your smoker friends, and you laugh. I fall in and out of the habit of authoring my own posts. I don't like posting too often as it is, I like to remain somewhat of a mystery...
I do not lurk often, but when I do it is to catch up with people I am far out of touch with. I might not have “friended” them, but they still cross my mind.