http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Here's a somewhat relevant toy that's fun for English majors :D
When I was a kid, I would cheat at the choose-your-own adventure books because I was impatient. I'd just read pages out of order or purposefully look ahead. I don't know what that would symbolize in terms of literary analysis but I feel like it adds a third layer. Choose-your-own-adventure has some sort of structure. My version of it was anarchy.
Today's reading also reminded me a lot of this X-Files game I used to have which was very similar to a choose-your-own-adventure but it incorporated video and computer elements. It actually had little to do with the main X-Files character - you were just a random person caught up in some complicated conspiracy. There was a main "correct" path you had to take but you could create variations along the path. Also, there was a great deal of interaction going on...I appreciated that a lot of the interaction had nothing to do with the main "point" of the game. For example, you could read "your" (you play a male FBI agent) diary, harass your ex-wife or even commit suicide (hahah, wasn't exactly age-appropriate!). Along with your actions, you chose how you interacted with people - you could hit on people or be an absolute asshole which would do anything from change the dialogue to get you shot.
In this way, it had variable discourse and variable plot but a limited point of view.
also this: "The ludic pleasure of deciphering the logic of the system – what game designers call reverse engineering- cannot be separated from the narrative pleasure of watching the story unfold" reminded me of an article by Chuck Klosterman when he talks about his younger niece explaining how to play the Sims: "'You just live here,' she said. 'That's just the way it is.' But where did I get all this money? 'You just have money.' But where did I come from? 'Nobody knows. You're just here.' Am I one of the 55 million Americans living without health insurance? 'Be quiet! You won't get sick.' ... The rules become fixed. Fabricating a Sim-human's college experience would be no different than randomly deciding that 90210's Brenda Walsh got a C+ in tenth-grade biology. Those facts aren't available to anyone. Clearly, video technology cages imagination; it offers interesting information to use, but it implies all peripheral information is irrelevant and off-limits."
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
the pros and cons of digital video
+ I can legally watch a whole lot of movies (yay Netflix!). I can also illegally watch almost anything that ever existed in video form. Favorites include old propaganda relating to drugs or war (seriously, Disney and Warner Bros. made some interesting pieces).
+/- Thanks to tiny digital video cameras and cell phone cameras, anything you do or say can be recorded by anyone. It's a lesson celebrities have learned the hard way.
+/- On one hand, it's cool that we get sharper images. On the other, there are drawbacks to using digital video rather than film in terms of contrast and lighting. According to wikipedia, "Film handles highlighting differently." Electronics vendors constantly market "high-high-superhigh" definition type equipment. There seems to be something of a battle in the film world. I'm not expert, but on a whole I find movies shot with digital equipment to be usually ugly, with the exception of Sin City and Grindhouse both of which were very stylized. I'm not expert, though. Hm. For example, in the new Star Wars I think it tended to excentuate the "video game" look of the movie. The older Star Wars did not seem hyperaware about its special effects and looks so much better to me. Maybe the entertainment industry has some sort of evil plan to get Americans to buy expensive entertainment systems to better view the new film techniques.
- This is incredibly off-topic but YouTube has the stupidest commenters on the internet. Examples: "I think that the snake does'nt got any thees and poisen. BUT STILL WHAT A STUPID PEAPLE!" "your the reason dianasors went exstixnt"
+/- Thanks to tiny digital video cameras and cell phone cameras, anything you do or say can be recorded by anyone. It's a lesson celebrities have learned the hard way.
+/- On one hand, it's cool that we get sharper images. On the other, there are drawbacks to using digital video rather than film in terms of contrast and lighting. According to wikipedia, "Film handles highlighting differently." Electronics vendors constantly market "high-high-superhigh" definition type equipment. There seems to be something of a battle in the film world. I'm not expert, but on a whole I find movies shot with digital equipment to be usually ugly, with the exception of Sin City and Grindhouse both of which were very stylized. I'm not expert, though. Hm. For example, in the new Star Wars I think it tended to excentuate the "video game" look of the movie. The older Star Wars did not seem hyperaware about its special effects and looks so much better to me. Maybe the entertainment industry has some sort of evil plan to get Americans to buy expensive entertainment systems to better view the new film techniques.
- This is incredibly off-topic but YouTube has the stupidest commenters on the internet. Examples: "I think that the snake does'nt got any thees and poisen. BUT STILL WHAT A STUPID PEAPLE!" "your the reason dianasors went exstixnt"
digital media
It's interesting to think about film studies in terms of the digital revolution. This semester I'm taking Russian Cinema and I plan to take more film classes in the future. It's hard just to remember how cumbersome VHS was. I think that was the quickest technological overthrow I've yet seen. On the other hand, it's odd to think of a giant film database that would analyze trends because we don't yet have one for written texts! Why not feed all important literature into a database and mark-up different uses of language? Films databases would encounter the same problems. That is, I can see thousands of academics arguing over how exacty to carve up movies as well as books.
Film analysis also runs into the same problem as the other visual arts. How do you analyze a performance? A dance? A particular theater production? A painting? The latter is a bit easier because you can include a still but it's not the same as "the real thing." All of these suffer things getting "lost in translation." Furthermore, I don't think there's a standardized citation system. When I wrote my film analysis, I didn't have to include which particular version or cut I was watching or where exactly this scene could be found within the film. In standard literature, I absolutely must include page numbers and book versions. Odd, isn't it?
Film analysis also runs into the same problem as the other visual arts. How do you analyze a performance? A dance? A particular theater production? A painting? The latter is a bit easier because you can include a still but it's not the same as "the real thing." All of these suffer things getting "lost in translation." Furthermore, I don't think there's a standardized citation system. When I wrote my film analysis, I didn't have to include which particular version or cut I was watching or where exactly this scene could be found within the film. In standard literature, I absolutely must include page numbers and book versions. Odd, isn't it?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
editing
I have not heard of any dynamic editions of texts that the article seems to be refering to so I'll stick to what I know.
"...none of these advances in markup, nor any of these guidelines, is robust enough to accommodate all facets of the actual textual experience of editors working with primary artifacts."
This is true. I've edited both electronically and the old-fashioned way. I prefer having a physical copy to mark-up because it's very simple to keep track of what you've done and there's just something about writing that seems to make it easier. This gets bulky, though, if you're editing multiple editions of novels. Electronic editing is handy but it's also extremely fluid - instead of going through concrete drafts, the text seems to morph into something different with no trace of what it was unless you continuously save your work.
"...none of these advances in markup, nor any of these guidelines, is robust enough to accommodate all facets of the actual textual experience of editors working with primary artifacts."
This is true. I've edited both electronically and the old-fashioned way. I prefer having a physical copy to mark-up because it's very simple to keep track of what you've done and there's just something about writing that seems to make it easier. This gets bulky, though, if you're editing multiple editions of novels. Electronic editing is handy but it's also extremely fluid - instead of going through concrete drafts, the text seems to morph into something different with no trace of what it was unless you continuously save your work.
Monday, October 29, 2007
my laptop gets internet out of the air or something
I'm proud of myself for keeping up with these blog posts now :D
Ah, wireless technology. I've always been the kid with the old-school Nokia. even now I have a new (free) flip phone capable of all sorts of fancy things (pictures, graphics, ringtones that aren't MIDIs) sitting in a box because I feel like a traitor ditching my extremely sturdy old Nokia. I'm somewhere between a neo-Luddite and someone who's grudgingly accepting of technology. I don't have a landline but I also don't see the point in text-messaging (plus the data transmission is overpriced). I never respond to them. And while there's a lot of nice things about cell phones and mobile devices, one thing I hate is being kept track of 24/7. There's no excuse not to get ahold of someone nowadays. If I don't call back within a few hours, people think I'm dead and "uh, my phone was off/I didn't hear it ring/I didn't have a signal" gets old fast. I just hate being on some sort of digital leash and sometimes I romanticize the days where people sent letters instead of instant responses. I also think we now have a fear of silence - everyone is always on a phone. It seems like when people have a spare minute they call just to chat with someone. Whatever happened to just sitting somewhere? This contributes to all those etiquette problems in the Wikipedia article. I guess the bottom line is: being connected is pretty cool but it's possible there can be too much of a good thing.
As for wireless technology in general? It's good to know my laptop doesn't just magically get internet out of the air :D It's pretty convenient. I wonder why the Wikipedia article did not bring up the issue of "stealing" wireless internet (though I guess it's not stealing if it's open to anyone). I wonder if you become liable for illegal activities on your personal wireless network?
toothpastefordinner.com
Ah, wireless technology. I've always been the kid with the old-school Nokia. even now I have a new (free) flip phone capable of all sorts of fancy things (pictures, graphics, ringtones that aren't MIDIs) sitting in a box because I feel like a traitor ditching my extremely sturdy old Nokia. I'm somewhere between a neo-Luddite and someone who's grudgingly accepting of technology. I don't have a landline but I also don't see the point in text-messaging (plus the data transmission is overpriced). I never respond to them. And while there's a lot of nice things about cell phones and mobile devices, one thing I hate is being kept track of 24/7. There's no excuse not to get ahold of someone nowadays. If I don't call back within a few hours, people think I'm dead and "uh, my phone was off/I didn't hear it ring/I didn't have a signal" gets old fast. I just hate being on some sort of digital leash and sometimes I romanticize the days where people sent letters instead of instant responses. I also think we now have a fear of silence - everyone is always on a phone. It seems like when people have a spare minute they call just to chat with someone. Whatever happened to just sitting somewhere? This contributes to all those etiquette problems in the Wikipedia article. I guess the bottom line is: being connected is pretty cool but it's possible there can be too much of a good thing.
As for wireless technology in general? It's good to know my laptop doesn't just magically get internet out of the air :D It's pretty convenient. I wonder why the Wikipedia article did not bring up the issue of "stealing" wireless internet (though I guess it's not stealing if it's open to anyone). I wonder if you become liable for illegal activities on your personal wireless network?
toothpastefordinner.com
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
e-text! or "your an idiot"
I'm going to be obnoxious and write in purple.
I think the fears regarding electronic media and computer are interesting and still very alive today. I think the book as a physical object has more staying power than alarmists realize. On the internet, I can read small articles and conversations but using it as a primary source for written text is very difficult. I'm a cheapskate so occasionally I attempt to read a book for class on the internet instead of buying it, and it's never a good idea. Somehow it's just hard to read...and less portable (I'm not whipping out my laptop on the bus). When electronic text becomes easier to read and more portable/affordable, perhaps then traditionalists can worry. But even then, I can only imagine electronic text as imitating traditional media ("electronic paper"). And there's the idea of permanence; physical books/writing has to be destroyed. Data can be erased.
They may have a point with this "erosion of language"...it's a popular complaint among teachers that students use text-speak or whatever. But is this due to the internet/computers or is it just a generation of kids ignorant about grammar who are more likely to use the internet? I'm betting the latter. I see "your/you're" and "they're/there/their" all over the internet (along with its/it's confusion and a host of other terrible things) but I think it's a result of the internet's demographic. People have probably always been this bad - we just notice now because we're using text to communicate much more frequently. Furthermore, does language "erode"? Or does it simply change? Today's common usage is yesterday's abuse of the English language.
I think the fears regarding electronic media and computer are interesting and still very alive today. I think the book as a physical object has more staying power than alarmists realize. On the internet, I can read small articles and conversations but using it as a primary source for written text is very difficult. I'm a cheapskate so occasionally I attempt to read a book for class on the internet instead of buying it, and it's never a good idea. Somehow it's just hard to read...and less portable (I'm not whipping out my laptop on the bus). When electronic text becomes easier to read and more portable/affordable, perhaps then traditionalists can worry. But even then, I can only imagine electronic text as imitating traditional media ("electronic paper"). And there's the idea of permanence; physical books/writing has to be destroyed. Data can be erased.
They may have a point with this "erosion of language"...it's a popular complaint among teachers that students use text-speak or whatever. But is this due to the internet/computers or is it just a generation of kids ignorant about grammar who are more likely to use the internet? I'm betting the latter. I see "your/you're" and "they're/there/their" all over the internet (along with its/it's confusion and a host of other terrible things) but I think it's a result of the internet's demographic. People have probably always been this bad - we just notice now because we're using text to communicate much more frequently. Furthermore, does language "erode"? Or does it simply change? Today's common usage is yesterday's abuse of the English language.
It is interesting to know that language and form do influence content, meaning and the way things are percieved. I know the reading focused more on e-text in terms of e-books but I think other forms of electronic text are more influential. For example, more and more on a daily basis we express ourselves only through text...in text messages, e-mails, blog posts, instant messages and more. Therefore, more and more, we are represented solely by our text. The way in which we present our text, the specific language we use becomes a representation of ourselves. This blog is a prime example of this.
Monday, October 22, 2007
e-commerce
I think I understand textual mark-up a little better, at least in concept but I'm still not 100% sure about it purposes within digital culture. I guess it's just a way of efficiently organizing and synthesizing information. In a sense, everything is "marked up," even this text I'm currently presenting. This and the study of databases previously seemed pretty boring but afterwards, I think studying linguistics in the context of technology would be pretty nifty.
If copyright laws on the internet reminded me I don't want to be a lawyer, e-commerce reminds me I don't want to study business. It seems everything is getting increasingly complex. A lot of the assigned reading focused on the larger picture - corporate trading, overall business trends - rather than impact on the consumer. I know I should be less apathetic because it does indirectly involve me, but I'm not so interested in how huge corporations wish to squeeze more money out of the internet or the resulting perils. It seems when they get a little too greedy and overzealous (buy! buy! buy!) they forget their purpose and then we have dot-com busts (but again, I'm no economist).
Reading some of these articles, it seems again, corporations are wanting a larger piece of the internet pie. Apparently NBC and Universal want to begin pulling content from Apple's iTunes and offer it up on their own sites. I really don't feel like this will be successful, as it's not looking out for the consumer. It seems the sole good thing about iTunes is the range of obscure media available for purchase in one centralized place. It eliminates the hunting down of things. If these companies begin to splinter, consumers aren't going to want an account at 8 different media sites. It removes the convenience which the users seem to be all about (otherwise, they'd just spend a lot of time hunting for rare things for free, like me). Maybe I'm just a picky and lazy customer, but I only use online businesses to the extent they benefit me.
Speaking of online business, one I kinda like is threadless.com. Basically, they print t-shirts. Anyone can upload a design and users vote on individual designs. The most popular designs are put up for sale for a decent price, as far as aesthetically appealing t-shirts go. I think it's so popular primarily because of this interactive model (omg web 2.0!)...users are encouraged to upload pictures of themselves in the shirt for store credit, keep blogs on designs and be part of an overall large community.
If copyright laws on the internet reminded me I don't want to be a lawyer, e-commerce reminds me I don't want to study business. It seems everything is getting increasingly complex. A lot of the assigned reading focused on the larger picture - corporate trading, overall business trends - rather than impact on the consumer. I know I should be less apathetic because it does indirectly involve me, but I'm not so interested in how huge corporations wish to squeeze more money out of the internet or the resulting perils. It seems when they get a little too greedy and overzealous (buy! buy! buy!) they forget their purpose and then we have dot-com busts (but again, I'm no economist).
Reading some of these articles, it seems again, corporations are wanting a larger piece of the internet pie. Apparently NBC and Universal want to begin pulling content from Apple's iTunes and offer it up on their own sites. I really don't feel like this will be successful, as it's not looking out for the consumer. It seems the sole good thing about iTunes is the range of obscure media available for purchase in one centralized place. It eliminates the hunting down of things. If these companies begin to splinter, consumers aren't going to want an account at 8 different media sites. It removes the convenience which the users seem to be all about (otherwise, they'd just spend a lot of time hunting for rare things for free, like me). Maybe I'm just a picky and lazy customer, but I only use online businesses to the extent they benefit me.
Speaking of online business, one I kinda like is threadless.com. Basically, they print t-shirts. Anyone can upload a design and users vote on individual designs. The most popular designs are put up for sale for a decent price, as far as aesthetically appealing t-shirts go. I think it's so popular primarily because of this interactive model (omg web 2.0!)...users are encouraged to upload pictures of themselves in the shirt for store credit, keep blogs on designs and be part of an overall large community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
