New Media Theory and Thought

The Interweb

2005-12-13T12:47:00.000-08:00

Here is my beloved final project. Please enjoy- it really is a lot of fun.

http://pages.pomona.edu/~arl02004/ms149project/interweb.htm

To Live, To Blog, No More.

2005-12-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

This is my final entry. At this entry, I fall short of the required blog post amount of 26 by two posts. This should constitute a failure, but rather I have construed this as a great success. Blogging was easily the most difficult assignment of all my classes this semester. I think I actually spent more time fretting about behind my sorry self was in posting than actually doing any of the things that I was supposed to be doing.
With that said, I think Prof. Fitzpatrick and I had very different ideas of what I was “supposed to be doing” with my blog.
I am now going to asses my performance using both my own and the sylabus’ outline for the blogging experience:
My Standards:
1)Think about the readings and write about them
1)PASS. I definitely used all of my blog post to connect with our readings and think in very specific ways on my course readings. I got to flesh out my ideas much better than I would ever have in class. I could type a page and get into the specifics of something that, had I done in class, would have been a bit excessive. I thought my blogs where well written and a good inquiry and explication of the readings.
2)Blog twice a week instead of turning in reading responses
2) FATTY FAIL. My life fell apart this semester. I went a month without blogging and then had to write 3 a week to try an catch up. I was continually behind and inconsistent. This caused me to get even more stressed out about the assignment. It was hard to think about blogging as a replacement to a 1 page reading response when it seemed so informal and unimportant. I started behind, and though I tried with all my might to catch up, I ended behind.
3)Get interesting feedback from people on my blogged ideas, and do the same for others
3) FATTY FAIL.I think I got a total of 4 comments during the semster.(Which I was told was a lot of comments comparred to my classmates) That is hardly substantial feedback. A couple were susbstantive and interesting, but most were only tangentially related or a "i agree" comment. I'm not sure if it was bitterness or desire to make sure everyone could see my posts (which wasn't the case if I posted a response) I only responded to one person's post. Even then, it was indirectly because I just refrenced their posted article, rather than posting a comment. I just didn't feel compelled to type responses to blogs.
4)Do things on blogging that couldn’t happen better in class
4)FAIL.Nope. At the end of the semster, I still much prefered to talk to my classmates in person and hear what everybody had to say in person. I think the blogs should have been a special place where people who don't speak up in class have an opportunity to speak...but at the end of the day, the volume of posts (when people whre still keeping up) was too overwhelming to read everything. I didn't know who was who, and the posts started to get really repetitive. There was one on "I hate Memmot" and another on "I despise Memmot" and perhaps a third on "Memmot, go to hell". I didn't want to read the different reasons why, and had we had this conversation in class, one person would have said it and everyone would have nodded emphatically (and maybe thrown in a couple of other reasons for the hate). The blog was so not necesary for this. On the other hand, I was able to go into depth on a tangential point in a blog post that would have been inappropriate to spend class time on. Then again, we did get tangential quite often...anyways, I felt that class time derved my interests and mind much more than blog time.
And the course standards:
Which I should've read much more carefully, I'll admit.)
1)“focus and explore your developing ideas new media”
1)PASS. Much like my first standard, I feel that I did this well and developed my ideas in media studies.
2)“…and in particular, your term project”
2)SOFT FAIL. My continuing frustrations (which were the theme of many a post) with the lack of a map in many of our New Media readings/lessons were the inspiration for my final project, but were not me talking about my final project by any means.
3)“keep up-to-date on your fellow students’ blogs”
3) FAIL. I stopped seriously reading the aggregator a long time ago. People's posts were getting...how do I say politely...a bit, fluffy. I would scroll through the agregator and look at a title that caught my eye, but certainly looked forward more to what people would say in class, rather than their blog posts. People are funny in class, but get super boring in their blogs. Where's the passion? Wher's the zest for life? I have often asked myself these questions while scrolling through the monotonous aggregator.
4)“comment frequently on their posts”
4) FATTY FAIL. Again, reasons above.
All in all, this was a thoughouly upsetting and uninspiring experience. I didn't make of it what I could have, but then again, I was so busy trying to get to the baseline standards that I often missed the more involved parts of the blogging process. I think structuring the blogging assignment differently will yeild much better posts. Also, working it more into our class time and refining the way those 2 spaces interact would also be helpful.
I am happy to put this blog to rest, but strangely enough, I have become obsessed with Planned Obsolescence. Who would have thought....

Those Final Projects

2005-12-09T18:19:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to send a shout out to all my fine classmates for your work on those final projects. I had a good time watching and thinking about the projects. I laughed. I cried. I was scared of totaling the amount of hours put into to making stupid Dreamweaver work.
In all honesty, that was the most interesting exercise we had done all semester. It was awesome to see how everyone took the themes we had talked about and put them into action. I almost wish we could have had a couple of smaller presentations so that we could see how people were interacting with the texts all semester.
I look forward to playing with everybody’s sites even after the class is over. Wow. Never thought I’d say that.
A job very well done everybody.

Advertising Everywhere

2005-11-28T10:11:00.000-08:00

I wanted to throwback really quickly to a passage of Connected...
“Jeff Noon writes of ‘Blurbflies,’ artificial insects whose buzzing songs transmit advertising messages. When such insect messengers come calling, you cannot choose to respond. You may swat or shoo away a single fly, but more of them will always show up. The media-sphere is the only ‘nature’ we know, and unwanted messages, like insect pests, are crucial to its ecology’”(23)

Over the semester, I’ve been thinking about advertising, especially on the internet, but in other places as well. This Connected quote was a nice echo of a dread that has been growing in me, mainly, that advertising is going to continue to grow more and more invasive, and we as those who “consume” have no way to stop this growing frenzy.

I have had 3 particular moments where I felt completely assaulted by media and advertising

1. In my blog.
Ironically enough, my first posted response to my blog was a junk-mail post which read, “I thought your blog was pretty cool. I think you’ll like this as well” followed by a link to a casino site. I didn’t know that people could spam a blog, so I followed the link and sadly found myself at the casino site. My head dropped in shame and anguish. I wanted so badly to have one of my peers to care, to comment, for us to connect. Instead a casino-site link by someone who really could care less.

2. In a bathroom stall.
This is the one part of the day when no one bugs me, nobody contacts me and nobody want anything. I sit down on the porcelain thrown to find 3 flyers about different events on campus. I felt used. In my most private, solitary moment, people still felt compelled to advertise to me. Pitiful.

3. At the Beach.
So I am at the beautiful Huntington beach. The water is cool. There’s a light breeze, and there is not a cloud in the big blue sky. I am enjoying nature and its amazingness, taking in the view when all of a sudden, LIVE IT LIKE YOU MEAN IT. BACARDI., rips up the flawless skyscape. A plane was flying with giant banner behind it. This obnoxious tactic continued all day, telling me to drink Miller beer, use Vaseline Cooling Lotion and a variety of other products. People go to “nature” to get away from all the advertising and frenzy of everyday life. It is beyond offensive that advertisers sullied this sacred space with they’re ‘oh so important’ advertising.

These are 3 examples of when I have felt violated by advertising, where it crossed the line between expected annoyingness to offensive breach of personal space. But my greater wonder is, What do they think is going to happen by crossing these lines? Do they really think people are going to buy their products because they advertised them in a place where few others dare go? If anything, I am more likely NOT to buy the products, because they have offended me so. When I got sun-burnt at the beach, I purposely skipped over the Vaseline brand cooling lotion. I hate pop-up so much, that I vowed never to buy anything (or even look at anything) that came in pop-up format. Where, then, is the upside of advertising in my sacred space? Is more really better in the case of saturation? As the Connected quote suggests, we reach a point where we are so inundated, everywhere, that we ignore everything advertised. The advertising ceases to be effective, so why do they keep making more?

My other concern is that of agency and response. There is no way to say “No”. As long as they pay someone, advertisers can advertise, legally and protected, almost anywhere. Basically, I worry about the implications of having no direct way to get advertising out of my space, or out the public space where it doesn’t belong.

Tag-erific?

2005-11-27T22:40:00.000-08:00

I'm a slightly above average internet user.
I have an advantage, because I grew up using the internet, so I pick up quickly, but overall, I'm not going to spend time on the internet above and beyond the time it takes to accomplish the tasks at hand unless you give me a really engrossing reason.
The literature about tags what fairly uninteresting to me. I thought it was a nice concept, but beyond that, I didn't really care to use it myself. I'm blaming this on several things:

1. Tags are more work
I could care less if anyone found my blog and wanted to read it. (Actually, that’s not true, I care a little bit, but not a lot). There was a lot of directions involved for making tag, and quite frankly, I don’t want to mess with code and html unless I know it’s going to be fruitful. From the sound of the articles, tagging a site well requires a plethora of base tags and then more tags which are synonyms or singular/plural of the original tag. This seems like a lot of work, just to have other people be able to find a site. I know this is useful, so I’m not going to discount it completely, but for my run-of-the-mill internet use, it’s not happening.

2. I don’t have time
Tags are for people who have time to browse, sift around, poke here and there until they find the leaf or leaves of interest in the leaf pile. I don’t have time. Trees are much more conducive to finding what I want quickly and efficiently. Trees may not give me everything, but they do give me something almost immediately.

When I do want to browse, I use a facet system, such as Amazon.com. I know that I’ll at least get the right genre of product when I click on a category (unlike tags). From there, I can specify by facet information what I want to look through. Even though I’m browsing, facet system makes this process fairly concise and well reasoned. As several of the articles said, it matters that these are administratively designed organizational structures, whereas tagging is done my regular ‘folks’. I just find that tree structures and facet structures help me find what I want without the hassle that tags would give. I won’t say tags aren't useful or even superb, but it looks to me like the technology needs to be sharpened a lot more before they are a really effective tool. Tags are for people with time.

3. Incentive?
Tags really do seem like a “and then some” category for most sites. Its nice that someone did it, but it’s not necessary. I see how tagging could be adding to the greater good of the people, but I didn’t read any particular reason why I should feel compelled to tag my sites. Where’s the incentive?

As always, if I missed something or completely had a mental drop which would destroy my argument, I’m open to comments or responses.

We Certainly Do Like Ourselves.

2005-11-27T21:19:00.000-08:00

Mathers’ article "Folksonomies" referenced the fact that on Flckr the tags "cute" and "me" come up a lot, displaying our narcissism and ego. I was thinking about this a bit after I rolled my eyes and thought about people thinking they were awesome and noteworthy, and dare I say, original, when in fact they are like everyone else. Then I was thinking about how the internet can really grow by leaps and bounds on the grounds of people thinking other random people care about them in some way.

Realize that I’m not referring to posting information that people you know can access. That is a different sort of internet use.

Photo sharing is an obvious example of this phenomenon. Everybody is familiar of the links people send out of their grandchildren….with 50 different angles of the same rather blue-ish tinted baby asleep covered to the head in baby pink pajamas. Aren’t they adorable? It gets us back to the fact that because its so simple to end something like this out to 100 people, somebody feels compelled to do it. Whereas sending those pictures out, all 50 million copies by snail mail is hardly worth the pay off, the internet makes it possible.

I’m of course factoring in my inherent dislike of people and my tendencies to be snobbish about what is and isn’t significant information that should be mass emailed, but realize also that I spend the better part of each day riding my inbox of “thought this was interesting…” 12 page articles and “sweet pics ” pictures of Italy that someone randomly sends me because I’ve been to Italy. Yea, I’m biased, but with good reason.

The Facebook is another example. People put up all of this information, because ostensibly someone will care, and then that someone and you will be friends. This is a strange concept to me. You aren’t really friends, you just have something in common. I suppose you could become actual friends, but I think most people stop after they’ve pushed the friend button and posted on someone’s wall once. Lasting friendships are not built on the Facebook.com. Just my opinion though, feel free to argue.

On a bigger scope, I worry that this sort of acquaintanceship adds to the post-modern condition of fracture. I may read to much into this, but I think that spending time making acquaintances on the Facebook means that you aren’t spending time talking to real people and searching out real live people who are doing the same things as you. This seems to lead too easily to apathy and a general disengagement with real life community.

The greater question I’m getting at here is, what does it mean to put your information, life out on the internet/public? And more importantly, What will you gain out of this?

What's Up with the Question Marks?

2005-11-27T20:23:00.000-08:00

What's up with question marks appearing in place of apostrophes in some of the articles we read online?
I tried switching browsers and it still happened, so I guess it's not just one place or browser.

There are two issues this of quandary brings up:

1. How do you get questions answered about the internet?

and

2.Why does something little like that bother me so much?

First tings first. I identified this as a problem, then had nowhere to go with it for an answer. This is very common with the internet. I find that questions such as, “Why won’t this work properly?”, “How does this feature work?” or “How does this Windows feature of the browser work on a Mac?” are often questions that are unanswerable. This is something very unique to the internet—there is no owner, so there is no one to hold accountable or address questions to. In some cases, I suppose one could ask the software creator/company, but that seems a bit silly. I personally don’t want to wade through and internet help site or wait on hold knowing that my question may not be significant enough to answer. Don’t even get me started of the ridiculousness of internet help sites. It is soooo frustrating to want to talk to a human and be continually pushed back into the realm of “find it yourself with our easy FAQ site”.

Second, this stupid little detail of question marks replacing apostrophes threw my entire reading off. What gives? It’s a tiny little stroke of a difference, and yet, I stopped EVERY SINGLE TIME and looked confused at the screen until I figured out that, yet again, it was not a fragment ending with a question mark, but supposed to be an apostrophe. It just reminds me how strong the coding of the alphabet is on my mind. Yet, I know there are studies which show that you can misspell lots of word in a row, and the mind will barely register that there has been mistakes. I wonder why there is inconsistency between letters and symbols? Or maybe I’m just dense…

Not the most profound post ever, but had to get it out.

If anybody, by the way could answer my question about the apostrophe question marks, you would prove the utopian community and collaborative ideals of the internet. Just a bit of incentive.

Even those primitive people can use them

2005-11-20T18:12:00.000-08:00

I wanted to share a quote from the "BBC article UN Debut for 100$ Laptop" that somebody linked to in their blog:
"Studies have shown that kids take up computers much more easily in the comfort of warm, well-lit rich country living rooms, but also in the slums and remote areas all around the developing world."
WHaaaaaATTTTTT!!!
I almost gagged myself reading this. Who says that sort of thing?!
What kind of studies were they running, I wonder. This sort of anthropological garbage makes me want to rip my eyeballs out and chew on them. You cannot run a study and conclude that ability to use a computer well boils down to a well lit room. That is beyond offensive. I can hardly believe somebody at BBC was dumb enough to publish this absurd utterance.
Maybe I misunderstood this quote, and if someone else read it another way, please tell me. BUT what I'm reading is that someone decided that a child's potential use a laptop well depends solely on a good light bulb and central heating. Hmmm…Is it possible we might be forgetting the oh so tiny details of culture, wealth, capitalism and the general technological inundations that kids in “highly-developed” cultures are subject to from birth? There are far too many factors involved to be that reductive.
Also, as utopian of an idea as this is, I’m hesitant to think that the world would be a better place if we could just all have laptop computers. How about eating? That might be nice for a lot of places. How about national control over one’s own resources, so that countries can better boost their economies? How about a primary education?! The kids in the so called “slums” could benefit from a lot of things before EVER needing a computer.
This desire to connect everybody and give everybody a computer is so annoying and ridiculous to me. It’s so Western-centric. We seem to have difficultly understanding that not everyone needs or even wants technology. It simply may not be essential. We also tend to see technology (much in the same line of thought that science acts as the new religion) as the savior of humanity. “If only we could make everything electric and computerized and give those poor people internet access, it would all be better.” This is problematic for more reasons than I care to rant about, so I’ll save you the scroll-time.
I do think inexpensive laptops are a great idea. I just think people ought to think a little harder about who actually benefits from the technology and where it can be best applied.

Connected is Creepy

2005-11-14T14:07:00.000-08:00

I can't help but feel like I'm traped in the Matrix reading Connected. Shaviro structures in an undercurrent of fear and distrust by so blatantly speaking on the ways that the network functions and controls. Part of the reason it is so disturbing is precisely because Shaviro is so upfront about it. This is no conspiracy theory, but rather a description of what actually happens and what is currently happening. The bringing in of science fiction (and with it the forecast of what could be, given our current trajectory) only adds to the underlying doom. Or maybe not so much doom, as dread.
A couple of quotes that got me looking around shifty-eyed for the cameras and impending apocalypse:
"It does not need to put us under surveillance, because we belong to it, we exist for it already" (32)
"Yet these people never interact with one another, for each of them is lost in his or her own little private world...the network can function in this manner, without contradiction, because each person is isolated and alone in precisely the same way."(31)
These two quotes are disturbing because they present the network as this powerful, non-human entity. It’s so disembodied, but at the same time utilizes our bodies. It seems to be controlled by a group of people, “The Man” style, but also seems unaffected by what humans want or need after an initial human input. The talk of viral marking and parasitic relationships add to the overall feeling of an entity out of our control. I think that’s a big feeling- loss of control. The network has no face, no name, no head, no place to “face-up” to it and fight it’s effects. That reality means a lack of agency and a loss of control at the individual level.
This loss of control would be okay, I guess, if the general state of things seemed to be going in a positive, constructive direction. If the network would bring us toward a utopia. But instead Shaviro describes the world, fully networked, as “Every square yard was occupied by a stall or shop or kiosk…The public address system thumped out urgent-sounding interruptions…MacLeod is showing us our own market-crazed society, of course, as it might appear from the other side of the mirror”(22). This, to me, is the ultimate dystopia. The consumerism and cut-throat capitalism as it is already makes me ill. To feel like every last inch of my life will be saturated with this advertising and consumerism scares me beyond reason. I’m not okay with the network taking over if that’s where we are going.
It makes me want to get out, escape the network and start a rogue group -of people who are dedicated to not letting this happen and staying human. (I might be getting carried away with my Matrix-like tendencies ) I suppose that's why I have friends and am a Media studies major...

And Now for Another Meta-Moment:

2005-11-11T23:06:00.000-08:00

I HATE BLOGGING!
As I type this, I’m 4 blogs behind and still can’t quite get into the blogging grove….. I cracked.
Yes, I'm going to use one of my assigned blogs to whine about how much I hate blogs. But just to be fair and not completely abuse the openness of these assignments, I'm going to explain why.
1. I grew up with paper, in a print society.
It feels like I actually do something when I turn in a paper. All crisp and clean and neatly stapled. I know that it physically exists, and that it will get the due time being read and edited and I will know due time was given because I get the paper back, with responses and a grade. With blogging, I spend an hour typing up my thoughts (which I really do put a lot of time into) only to send them into cyberspace. I’ve gotten 1 comment the entire semester. That’s all the feedback I’ve gotten. It’s very difficult to keep learning and pushing my boundaries and thoughts when nobody gives me a direct response to my ideas. I don’t know if anybody reads them, or even if I’m smart. (Granted, that is a person self-esteem issue, but stay with me here)
Furthermore, paper is an actual thing. If my blog entries were papers (which I know are expected on the teacher’s desk) I would feel compelled to have the papers there. Blogs are just some stuffs on a screen and somehow I just have a hard time feeling accountable for my work online.
2. Computers + Focusing = Fracturing and Painful Slowness
The internet is distracting and essentially demands multitasking. With blogs, I have to be on the internet to post and manage. I finally figured out that I can type into Word and cut and paste, but I still have to deal with the Blogger interface. This really shouldn’t be a big deal. I know that I am capable of just shutting down all the other windows, but I never do. (Again, personal pitfall, but I’m ignoring my own problems right now) Guaranteed, while I’m writing a blog, I check my email 4 times, respond to 3 people and then start another blog half way through. Where a paper assignment would take 40 minutes, one blog entry can take between 1 to 2 hours. This is unacceptable and annoying. This lack of continuous thought I am blaming on the open-ended nature of the blogs. I have no reason to settle on a topic, nor any particular reason to follow through with an idea. I have no due dates, specifically. I have no immediate, tangible consequences to being late habitually. I don’t get a blog back that says, “C- This was two days late”. I’m not accountable in the blog realm, but I’m in an environment (my computer) that barrages me with other responsibilities (email, Word documents, my Palm schedule, iTunes{not really a responsibility, but really necessary to know what’s in my top 30 most played}) The computer is a distracted place for me, and my work, in reflection, is distracted.
Two reasons, may not seem like a lot, but this is the length for now. I’m imposing a limit, so that I can be done with this exercise that I loathe. I look forward to talking in class about blogs and seeing whether people got something nice, pleasant or just not-nasty out of them.

And when you say American, you really mean...

2005-11-11T22:04:00.000-08:00

White Middle/upper-class men. That's right, I said it. It has come to me more and more that when we talk about American culture, we are not thinking about everyone, but rather that "classic" example of an American. In the case of Gomez-Pena's article, the generic/collective American has the added merit of being technologically savvy.
A very important understanding of how we understand ourselves as
Americans lies in the invisibility and assumption of our own characteristics, and the blatantly noted difference (and implied lack) assigned to other cultures or countries-which in comparison makes us look superior.
Gomez-Pena notes:
"This simplistic and extremely problematic binary world view portrays Mexico and Mexicans, as technologically underdeveloped, yet culturally and spiritually superior; and the US as exactly the opposite."
By separating out entire countries and juxtaposing them against the United States, we (Americans/ the dominant people (?))project our issues onto the land of the “Other”. This is the attitude of “those are third world problems” which both masks the internal diversity of class, race, and technological access, and maintaining a division between what is of “advanced” civilization and what is of “developing” civilizations. Sometimes, this ideology becomes so extreme that they are just “developing countries” and barely thought to be civilized at all. The very concept of Third world and Second world, says without saying that America is The First world country. There is such a supremacist hierarchy set up in our thinking that America has divided one world of people into three and then ranked them by some form of “objective” criteria. We put technology and science above spirituality in value. So they can have their culture (America doesn’t need culture anyways), but we are still better because we have the much more advanced achievement of technology. Note also, that I am perfectly understood when I say “America”, that I mean North America. How easily our thoughts and language slip into bias and exclusion.
Interrogating assumptions is at the heart of critical and cultural studies, so I won’t belabor that point. I just appreciated Gomez-Pena’s article in the ways that he spells out this manufactured separation of Mexico and Mexicans and Americans with their technology. Through his analysis of the ways in which technology is utilized by non-Americans it’s so obvious that the idea of “Mexicans can’t really understand technology” is absolutely ridiculous. As Gomez-Pena notes, binaries are troublesome. You push them and they fall apart. You present a third option, and they fall apart. You expose their creation and they fall apart. Gomez-Pena’s article did all of these things, especially the last of them. Particularly in new media, where it is so easy to get caught up in the newness and forget that very old (and often problematic, unjust) ideas are part of their creation, we need to continue to be critical and aware of who talks about the subject, in what terms and with whose permission. I applaud Gomez-Pena for doing this with blatant honesty, humor and good old fashioned refusal to say “that’s the way it is” when that’s not that way at all.

A safe space which is not a real place

2005-11-07T00:43:00.000-08:00

“Being sick of others also implies being sick of otherness”(Bell, Community and Cybercultures)
{Identity is a big part of culture and community and so I’m really just going to dip my feet in the water here.}
Otherness is a very serious issue which the post-modern person has to negotiate. Otherness is caused in part, by being physically separated from others. Thoughts and attitudes can be othering, but are not immediately divisive upon sight. The body is. So many of our communities and even more basically our associations, are categorized by, or organized around our physical appearance. There are also boundaries put on bodies and what they mean, boundaries which then require policing. Bodies are thus limited and restricted. Two very essential places of community form around body attributes: race and gender. These are two categories, which are based on cues from our physical body, shape just about everything we do and the ways we interact with each other. I want to use the example of gender right now.
The internet can help us undermine the negativity which otherness causes. One of the biggest reasons for the internet’s potential in this respect is it’s divorce from body. This body/media disconnect is possible to an extent with print, but not in other modern media. All of the other popular media are in some way tied to the body: Phones have voice, magazines have pictures of people, film and television present moving visualizations of people. You can’t easily get around the presentation of a body and all that bodies signify with most of our modern media. Print and internet (because they can communicate through text alone, if they so chose) are the only media that do not require a presentation of the body to present people. Print is limited by its speed of transmission and its lack ability to search efficiently. So we are left with internet.
I see two (very different) solutions to feeling “other” that online communities can provide: a community of others who identify in the same way in RL or ability to take an online body/identity which does not cause otherness.
Otherness can cause one to be unsafe in real life. I will take the example of a transgender person. Imagine, if you are able, knowing that you are a man but that your body is biologically female. Though you can present as a man, as long as your body is at all visibly female, you will be castigated, ostracized, isolated, feared and, in the worst case, violated. This is directly related to body, and the sense that your body doesn’t “match” you identity. It is easy to see how the body functions to other a transgender person. It is the body which traps and limits people. Leaving the body and using the internet can help one find safe space that is impossible in real life. One can use the internet to search out a community of transgender people and facilitate communication and support between them. This sort of meeting in RL is near impossible. Not only would there be a geographical limitation (because of where people live), but this can also be a meeting that can be targeted and dangerous. The internet provides a safe, accessible space in which one can communicate. By having that online community of others who share your otherness, you are no longer other, but us. The internet allows a sharing of similar identity and experience which is rare in RL.
The internet also provides the possibility of leaving your body completely. A transgender man is not tied to his female body on the internet. He is free to express his identity of man online. He is no longer other, because in the online space, he is free to be himself and express his gender in a way that is not immediately problematic and othering, precisely because the internet is not connected to the body.
These are just the tip of my thoughts on body, safety and the possibility of online communities.

Disneyland and Community

2005-11-06T22:48:00.000-08:00

"'White flight' and 'fortressing' the paranoid emptying-out as middle-class citizens retreat to gated suburban and exurban communicated can thus be read as responses to this particular city vision"(Bell, Community and Cybercultures)

This quote reminded me of this very strong connections that Americans seem to make between community and comfort. Disneyland, “the happiest place on earth”, came immediately to mind. Disneyland was created in the 1950’s to model a utopia of America, of which the creation of “comfort and safety” was a large part. Disneyland was actually designed to be visual juxtaposition and opposite of the emerging urban center of Los Angeles. Main Street is cozy and clear, as opposed to LA’s winding expanse. The streets of Disneyland are clean and smooth, as opposed to LA’s dirty streets and under-construction sidewalks. Everything in Disneyland, it seems, is distinctly not the surrounding Los Angeles. I was in Downtown Disney last week and was rather creeped-out my the lack of anything real. The plants were plastic sculptures or drenched in neon lighting. There was not a single piece of garbage on the ground. The feeling of simulacra crept in on me and I started to feel actually anxious- as if this was all a big, sick illusion that I was told to enjoy. My creeped-out-ness aside, Disneyland is set out to be a happy, safe place, where everybody there is friendly and everybody is your neighbor. In short, a perfect community.
Yet something seems strange about this. The word “escapism” flashes in big red letters in my mind. Why, oh why, do we have to retreat to these utopian places to feel comfortable and like we are part of a community? This very principle of leaving to get community is strange. We make our communities through our decisions, our laws and out interactions with others. It seems that this sort of flight is a solution to a problem that we create and perpetuate. It is even more strange that we are willing to pay money to feel like part of a safe community. This applies to both Disneyland and to gated communities. And all the while, the problem of feeling “unsafe” that we are trying to fix with our flight and escapism may or may not actually be found or maintained in these alternative communities. We pay money for the illusion of safety.
I would simply like to suggest that this behavior (as Bell notes) in irrational. We need to question the reasons behind why we are running away and why we feel unsafe. Our time and money may be better spent thinking about how to plan and restructure our existing communities so that they are inclusive and safe. Instead of fleeing from the so-called “hopeless” communities in which we live (which is only a temporary safety and comfort), why not invest time and energy into the communities in which we live so that they can be safe and comforting? Acting to forge a safe community eliminates the need to escape.

Database Narrative Is:

2005-11-01T22:02:00.000-08:00

I got a little bit confused what exactly database narrative entails. I enjoyed Tracing the Decay of Fiction, but it seemed just what Kinder said it was; an interactive documentary or interactive archeological space. Also, Kinder references several other films that she calls database narrative. Two of those I have seen: the Matrix and Run Lola Run. The only thing that I thought Decay of Fiction, the Matrix and Run Lola Run had in common was that they all had non-linear forms of narrative.
Also, I understand that Anderson makes a distinction between database narrative and interactive database narrative and gives those criteria, but what are the criteria for just a database narrative? From what I have gleaned a big part of it seems like time does not move linearly and there can be multiple layers or options all presented within one narrative unit (here film).
But what of the word “database”? That is still confusing me. It seems to me that in order to have a database narrative, one must have a database with which to select components of the narrative. This is clearly present in Decay of Fiction- as the DVD plays random clips selected from a database, influenced by the user. But with movies, they are preset and designated and the movie doesn’t really have a database. Run Lola Run has options for the viewer to see and exposes places where possibilities and occurrences diverge and converge, but isn’t working from a true database. I suppose one could argue that the database is that given set of time and all the possibilities of action in that time, but it’s a stretch. The Matrix doesn’t seem to have a database at all. It’s a fairly linear narrative. It has two locations of reality, but not a database.
Kinder also talks about lack of traditional closure in the database narrative. Both Run Lola Run and Matrix have closure. Run Lola Run gives several possible ends, but closes the film with one of those endings being the real end. The Matrix is a cliffhanger, in that the story clearly goes on after the movie stops, but any linear classic narrative can end in cliffhanger or be rather open-ended. To call traditional film database narrative seems off to me, because every film has a clear beginning and a clear end, as dictated by the format of film. It seems only this newer experimental film, which has different starting places and an end only when the viewer is done with the program/film, more truly represents narrative without a sense of closure.
Also, I seem to be missing the performative element of database narrative that Kinder describes. I don’t have to perform anymore in the Matrix than other movies. My brain has to work a little harder because it’s philosophic and edgy, but a plain old narrative can also be confusing or ask the viewer/reader/user to work to make connections. Is a Faulkner or Wolfe novel database narrative?
Kinder brings up a lot of the features of database narrative, but I want a more clearly defined idea of what is and is not database narrative.

Dreamcatcher

2005-11-01T15:51:00.000-08:00

“Dreams are a wonderful model for interactive database narrative, Kinder notes, because you experience a random combination of images that you then interpret and narrativize in light of whatever your ongoing life issues might be.”

I liked this quote from Anderson’s article and wanted to connect Kinder’s idea of dreams as database narrative to more general thoughts about narratives.
Dreams are strange. My brain, a big ‘ol database, takes a few of bajillion relevant thoughts I have and randomly strings them together into a story/narrative. My dreams (narratives) are really bazaar and I often do not take them as valid information to apply to real life. I will note that I draw a distinction between a valid and an invalid narrative. I can understand the narrative of my dream as a concept, but I is not meaningful to me as a narrative. I typically won’t use my dreams to inform my actions in real life. Yet if I see something in a really good movie that I identify strongly with, I may take a few actions or opinions from that movie and put them into my behavior. There is a hierarchy of validity and interest within narratives.
Also, I was interested to think about SNU. In dreams, the SNU are thoughts, people, places, feelings which are picked out, then combined. A dream is a story. I story tell in my subconscious. But also, I notice that I seem to be able to make a story out of just about anything. Some random blocks, my dinner, colored pencils and paper. Anything, it seems, can be SNU. I blame this on association. It doesn’t really matter what is physically present or viewable, as long as we can think about those things, we can form a narrative. Association in many ways is narrative formation. We string concepts together to help us remember them and give them meaning. This meaning is itself a little story or narrative. This seems like a very basic element of human brain functioning. But I don’t always care about every association my mind makes…
Which brings me to some questions:
If all narrative are simply a stringing together of narrative units, then why are some so much more credible and pleasurable for me to view? Why was Soft Cinema glorified nonsense to me, while Decaying Fiction was really interesting and engaging? Where is the line between innovation and nonsense? My guess so far is intertextuality. One can only push the experimental narrative so far before I can’t connect it to what I already understand as narrative. You can get a few steps away from a traditional narrative, but don’t fly to the moon and expect me to still get it. My last question how much do the boundaries of valid, credible, interesting narrative change for each person? Or are the boundaries more based on societal/group understandings of narrative?

The time it takes...

2005-10-30T12:04:00.000-08:00

In "The Interface", Manovich talks about the implications of content which is not inexistence until the user comes into context with the interface. He mentions Tamagatchi. My heart softened and I was taken back to fond memories of playing with my Tamagatchi kitten which I proudly kept alive for a record-breaking 14 days. I was considered a demi-god to my peers, who were simply in awe of my techno-care abilities. Ahh.. if only I were credible today for keeping on top of my technology. I wanted to take a second to think about this compulsory interaction of the internet and computer based communication in general. There is a very interesting combination of immediacy (the speed with which the information travels) and our interaction time with this information. It seems to me that because these technologies are capable of supplying instant information, that we are more and more expected to act and react at the same instantaneous speed or at the same "run-time" pace.
Let's look at two places: email and the infamous Tamagatchi.
Tamagatchi are great and all, but in order to successfully "use" the program (have the healthiest, longest living animal) requires constant attention. I remember asking to go use the bathroom just to take time to feed and walk my kitten. Not that kittens really need to be walked...The bottom line: if you put in a lot of time, you get the best results.
Now something a little more pressing--email.
People are strange with email. Just because the message gets to you in 3 minutes often means that people get antsy and impatient when you haven't responded by the fourth minute. While I can go a week without having someone respond to a phone call, I panic and am convinced that they have died if they haven't returned the email by the end of the day. Also, email is quick and easy to send to a wide amount of people. This means that information not important enough to actually tell people individually is now communicated to 50 with one click of a button. This means that I invariably spend a ridiculous amount of time everyday sifting through not very important or relevant information that has been thrown at me (very quickly).
These two examples illustrate two key things: 1) Our media demands a lot of time and 2) Our media demands that time at random and for us to divert attention in order to tend to it.
I'm sort of curious as to what sort of implications this has on our collective psyche. What does it mean that I got out of bed last night to fire a quick email to a classmate? What are we collectively not attending to while we sift through our ever-growing inboxes? Manovich says that all of these user choices cause stress, but what if the user choices and interface options distract us from something much bigger.....
I'm having a Matrix moment, so I'm going to stare off into the distance and stop typing now.

I was thoroughly perplexia-ed

2005-10-23T15:34:00.000-07:00

I had a very difficult time taking Lexia to Perplexia seriously. I put in a good effort for 15 minutes and then stopped for the following reasons:
1. Once again I was not given any direction. Much like The Intruder, I got the feeling that I was dropped into this "program" with no notion of what I was supposed to be doing.
2. I tried to just enjoy and do what I wanted, but it wasn't enjoyable. Unlike The Intruder, I couldn't even shoot at anybody to get my kicks. All I had was some things to click where more ugly, clashing colors and shapes popped up on the screen. How is that fun? If I was supposed to be learning something, Memmot could have at least done me the courtesy of using English.
3. I, like so many in this world, am lazy. I don't want to work that hard to understand something. Unless you prove to me that an intensely complicated, cryptic message is adding to the meaning of the piece, then I don't want to deal with working through it.
4. This seems so self-indulgent. Not everybody has time to sit and search for meaning in a program that seems to try really hard to be incomprehensible and not very accessible. While this is part of my homework, and I therefore gave it a chance, there are so many other things I could be doing or reading right now that have a direct link to my life or I can see their value or worth in principle. When I ask myself, "What does me fiddling with this do for my life or my education?" and the answer is "Not much.", I get a little bit annoyed and don't want to deal with it anymore.
5. This was in the program: "When everything is crystal clear and susynchronized the passage of meaning through the bi.narrative conduit is smooth, without catches or serration and the doubled transmissive agent(s) never meet, combat or challenge. The combined inTents perform as components of a single ideocratic device, de.signing, de.veloping and exe.cuting the mechanism that permits their passage." Basically, I was just annoyed that this passage (which seemed to be talking of smooth transfer of information) was found in a convoluted, confusing mess. Now I'm just bitter.
Perhaps class will do better to explain what the point of this exercise was, but until then I'm going to go do some relevant reading.

Manoivch, you disappoint me

2005-10-22T22:34:00.000-07:00

I was going to try to be fine with Manovich and his notions of New Media, but then he just had to go and say all sorts of socially problematic things. The biggest of which is:
"Do we want or need such freedom?...making a choice involves a moral responsibility. By passing on those choices to the user, the author also passes on the responsibility to represent the world and the human condition in it....the moral anxiety that accompanies the shift from constants to variables..."(44)
He almost completely missed the bigger picture with this statement. The bigger picture, I want to argue, is institutional control. Manovich forgets that the choices were given to the user before they even got the option of choosing. It is very dangerous that Manovich focuses on what the user is doing as the subject of his writing. It is important to look at how individual people use their media, but we will never understand the morality of the society if we don't look at the greater options the individuals have for their lives.
Let me give a hypothetical example:
I am given a portrait program with 8 different models of people on them; all of which are smiling males. Using the program, I am asked (because I, after all, have the choice and responsibility) to use these 8 templates to represent the world. "Ok", I say. According to Manovich, I'm going to be terribly anxious about having to make all of these choices, but in the end I do the best I can- sprinkling in what I judge to be a good mix of smiling males of color with smiling white males. I do okay for myself and have "represent[ed] the world and the human condition" as best as I could. What's wrong with the picture? I can use all my energy and effort to make what I understand to be an accurate but I still don't have any women or sad people as part of my representation! That is kinda really crucial.
This focus on the individual doesn't get around the responsibility of intuitions, authors, and creators of media to give us, the users, all possible options. Manovich can't say that users have moral responsibility if they are not actually completely responsible. Users aren't completely responsible because they most often are not working with a complete array of information. They are responsible only to make a choice out of limited options.
Manovich then goes on to say this causes huge anxiety for all users. How so? Do I really have that hard a time picking between a red interface and a green interface? Please. I need to be more convinced than that. I make decisions every single day, and I seem to be doing relatively okay for myself. I don't have a panic attack every time I choose between note taking with a pen or pencil. Computers are not the only place where I have to make decisions. Manovich's point on the anxiety is going down an irrelevant path as far as I'm concerned.
His time would be better spent exploring the link between user and author. Manovich needs to at least acknowledge the media conglomerates that blame the users for poor morality when they limit and control the choices on which our morality is created and defined.

The Media - Culture Link is NOT New

2005-10-22T12:41:00.000-07:00

I've got two Manovich quotes, and I want to pick a fight.
"In summary, the computer and the culture layer influence each other. To use another concept from new media, we can say that they are being composited together. The result of this composite is a new computer culture- a blend of human and computer meanings, of traditional ways in which human culture modeled the world and the computer's own means of representing it." (46)
"That is, the cultural categories and concepts are substituted, on the level of meaning and/or language, by new ones that derive from the computer's ontology, epistemology, and pragmatics. New media thus acts as a forerunner of this more general process of cultural reconceptualization."(47)

Lev, are you really sure that this is the first time people have been radically effected by their media?

It is possible that I missed a nuance of Manovich's argument, but I would like to point out that a cyclical system of influence is NOT specific to New Media.
An immediate example that came to mind was literacy, as Ong spells out in Orality and Literacy. Literacy did for culture all the things that Manovich attributes to "New Media". Let me break this down:
"a blend of human and computer meanings"
"the cultural categories and concepts are substituted, on the level of meaning and/or language, by new ones that derive from the computer's ontology, epistemology, and pragmatics"
What Manovich points to here is language. He speaks of a computer as having a language, meanings, all its own which then affects the language, expressed meanings, of humans who use them. (I'm going to ignore for a minute how much this smells of technological determinism.) Writing, especially the alphabet is the same situation. Both the language of the computer and the language of the alphabet are constructed systems of representation which are made by humans. There is also a blend of human and written meanings. For example, we have the shape of a heart. It was a rather random shape that we created to symbolize love. Over time, this became accept to mean love. That shape is a meaning belonging to the media of writing which we blended into a human meaning. This is analogous to the situation of the computer meaning ":)" blending with the human meaning of happiness or a smile. I'm not convinced that these blending processes are so different on the level of language.
Furthermore, Manovich seems to ignore that humans created the system. In both cases, humans decided to use a representational system to stand for concepts that they wanted to express. In both literacy and computer development, humans created an artificial system to help communicate and organize their thoughts, which then affect how we think. New media is not the first time "cultural reconceptualization" happened. There is no need for me to re-hash everything Ong set out in his book, but it seems very narrow of Manovich to ignore how much literacy changed culture.
I will give Manovich some credit, though, with his point about the flexibility and programmability of the computer. Print is not that flexible. In the time since it's origin, there's been different ways to get print on a page (typewriter, fonts etc.) but the general idea of top to bottom left to right is pretty stable. Though it did spark a cultural reconceptualization, the length and phases of this reconceptualization may not be as long as the computer's. But I don't think Manovich can argue that the computer will be reconceptualizing our culture indefinitely. We are at the beginning of this period (who knows how long it will last) where the new media is making a big change to our culture. Computers do have a big impact, I don't want to negate that impact. But so did literacy. I simply want to point out that many other media threw our culture into a period of reconcepulization. For Manovich to call computers the "forerunner" of cultural reconceptualization is a major critical error.

Don't count out our own stupidity

2005-10-08T19:27:00.000-07:00

This post isn't particularly connected to any reading, but rather a reminder against technological determinism. Also, I wanted to gently remind everyone of American stubbornness and stupidity. My topic of the hour is the keyboard.
I want to share the little known history of the computer keyboard, which came from the typewriter keyboard:
“The type-bar system and the universal keyboard were the machine’s novelty, but the keys jammed easily. To solve the jamming problem, another business associate, James Densmore, suggested splitting up keys for letters commonly used together to slow down typing. This became today’s standard "QWERTY" keyboard.” (about.com)
Did everybody read that? The keyboard was made to be slow.
So, in theory, when we switched from typewriters to computers, we would have set up a new keyboard set-up, because jamming hammers were no longer an issue. Or not. Instead, we kept the old system. I see this as a function of two things; laziness, and failure to introduce an alternative at the right time.
In case there is doubt, there are other typing systems. The best known is Dvorak, which positions the most frequently used letters in the center, or “home”, row. With Dvorak, you can easily type well over 100 words per minute and there is way less strain on your hands and fingers, because most words don’t require you to leave the “home” row. Dvorak is objectively much more efficient, and ultimately superior to QWERTY. There are alternatives and they are pretty good-looking.
So what happened?
1. People are lazy. Because QWERTY was already in place and people were familiar with it, they didn’t bother to switch. Most people didn’t/don’t know there are alternatives. There are a bazillion reasons, apparently not to make your life easier. People seem to cling, for dear life, to what is familiar and what is known. Which brings me to…
2. Bad timing. Had Dvorak been introduced and dispersed at the time of crossover to computers, people would have associated the new set-up with the new technology, and it may have stuck. However, Dvorak was not simultaneously distributed and because QWERTY is so widespread and accepted, people can, and do, use the excuse of QWERTY’s position as the standard to fend any attempt to transition into a new system.
The concept of transition is interesting to me. For it seems that at times, a technology needs to transition at exactly the same time as a media transition to succeed. Yet at other times, technology transitions naturally within a form.
I pose to my colleagues:
What forces determine which type of transition a technology will face? And what forces determine the success and/or endurance of the technology?

Where Am I?

2005-10-08T17:50:00.000-07:00

After hating Joyce's afternoon and wondering why, I came to a very important notion:

I don't know where the hell I am.

There is, I am convinced, and undeniable need to know where one is. Feel free to counter, but I'm going to be ridiculously reductive and say that a need to know where you are is a human trait that shapes our consciousness and choices. But I hate to get overly abstract, broad and philosophical, so I'll talk about this in New Media theory were I feel this concept pops up as relevant: the hypertext. All along, I want to stress the importance of 'orientation'.
As I noted, I disliked Joyce's story. It was due not, surprisingly, to the bizarre narrative, but rather to the format of hypertext. Last week's Bolter article offered some notes on hypertext and electronic books that warranted a firm nod of agreement; "Instead the [electronic] book is abstract- a concept, not a thing to be held....In these (admittedly early) days of electronic writing, the reader seldom has a sense of where he or she is in the book. The reader does not know whether there are hundreds of screens yet to read or just a few. There are ways of orienting the reader in an electronic document... "(87)
Basically, I don't know where I am in the hypertext, but what is most aggravating is the Joyce doesn't do me the courtesy of orienting me. “Orientation” here is a bit tricky, because in one sense it could mean as little as telling me what I'm going to see. But to be truly oriented, you need to have some sense of where you are. Where you are going or the ways to get there are whole other issues. Within the hypertext, Joyce can tell me all day of my options for navigation and that I'm done when I feel like it, but I’m going to argue that I am still not oriented. Furthermore, I want to argue that until I’m oriented, I cannot enjoy nor understand the text. If Joyce wants me, as a reader, to buy into his new form of narrative and story, then he has to give me a little more help then general directions.
What I found myself wanting was a map. Any map really- if even a simple 'you are on pg. 55 of 1768'. It can be a basic, almost childish map with lots of green dots and a red dot that says, “you are here”, like with the page numbers, but somehow that makes me so much more secure and confident as a reader/user. When an author works in hypertext, and therefore the volumeless space of the computer, I still want an explanation of what the space looks like. I am essentially asking Joyce (and other hypertext authors) to define the/a space for me, so I can make a decision of how to navigate the space and be comfortable in exploring the space.
This is where remediation enters the picture for a bit. Remediation, as I see it, is a one (of many) methods of orienting a user in a new technology. For example, in the case of a hypertext, giving hypertext screens page numbers is an orienting action. The page numbers, which belong to the "previous" media of print and the book, make me feel like I know where I am. Whether or not I actually do know ( either how the hypertext works or how I move through it) are really not as important. Remediation, here in page numbering, is just another way of defining the space. In this case, definition comes through connecting a known space (print/page numbers) with the unknown space (hypertext/computers).
Orientation and mapping as necesities for understanding...I will return to this idea, if not in my blog, then in my project.

Another shameless plug for my journal

2005-10-02T14:56:00.000-07:00

A few posts back, I ranted on Ong and his misunderstandings of the possible functions of "the diary" (or I as like to call it, journal). I'm back at it again, now with purpose and a better argument than, "I like writing my life down and I'm not confused on narrative". Earlier I spoke of my journal as a record. Now, I realize, it is a crude(to Bush's standards), hand-written form of a memex. Let me explain:
-I keep raw info in it
This is the input of new information that Bush refers to. I keep other people's quotes/thoughts in my journal, as well as letters, clippings and other interesting information that is not originally mine. I also keep other people's thought trails that are relevant to me. For example, I was thinking about what it meant to be a first generation citizen in the US, and I wrote down what my good friend Sarah had to say on the manner. Her thought trail was thus recorded and helps me develop my own trail on the subject.
-I keep thought trails
I sometimes note concrete facts/events of a given day, but more often my entries are like side-comments on what happened throughout the day. Otherwise, I use my journal as a place to develop ideas that I have on a subject. {Let's have an intertextuality/meta-moment}
So I was thinking about association and wrote about that a little, then that thought prompted me to write about how writing helps me associate more quickly. I add links to my thought trails and go off on tangent trails (as all good memexes can)
-I use it to identify, and track subconscious thought trails and patterns
This is the element which a real memex would help me through much more easily then my journal. After I have written many a page of text, I can go back and find patterns in my thought. Often, these are patterns I was not aware of until I read back through and pick them up/trace them out. It was unclear whether the memex might be able to do this process for me. While it could remember thought trails that had been manually connected, I question whether any machine will be clever enough to synthesize those sub-conscious connections for us...It's hard enough for me to do by myself. It's a strange process indeed to look at myself as a text for analysis, but this is indeed what my journal allows me to do.
Hopefully, I have outlined and illuminated another way of thinking about journaling; memex-esque association facilitator rather than confused narrative. I will likely return to my journal once again, as it is an interesting site to explore the multifaceted nature of text.

It's simple, but I don't know what's going on.

2005-10-02T13:37:00.000-07:00

"Nelson's vision was in some ways far different- his thinking much more general, and his proposals significantly more advanced..."(133)
Perhaps a tad too advanced for me.
I consider myself a good reader. I can follow and argument, and sometimes even extend it. But even using my good reading skills, I finished Nelson's "A File Structure..." And I had no clue what was going on. I hoped that class would clear up some of the questions, but we sort of skirted around the specifics there as well. Perhaps others were as confused as I was.
There was something quite curious about Nelson's article. Throughout he emphasizes again and again that the structure of the file system should be simple, easy, basic and ever other word which denotes facility of use. Why, then, did I finish the article have almost no clue what this 'simple file' looked like?
I thought for a bit, and then I wrote in my margin, "I need a ground". Even though Nelson explains clearly what he wants to do, I have difficulty understanding what's happening, because I lack something to which I can associate Nelson's ideas. I was trying to compare the system to my computer's organization, to the internet's, to my Palm Pilot, to anything really. But none of these seem applicable. So the generalizations that Nelson hoped would make it easy for the layman to understand were lost upon me because I couldn't link it to something I know.
I thought this fact was interesting; I can't understand a system which is so different than anything with which I already interact. This 'unable to understand outside the box' syndrome limits how quickly humans can progress in their technology. I was thinking about how I explain a new technology to, say, my mother. I usually say, "This button is just like the one on [x old-school appliance], and it does about the same thing..." It will usually only make sense or become usable to her once I have explained it in terms of something familiar.
So the question becomes: How far outside of the familiar are we capable of understanding?

I Cannot Express in Words...

2005-09-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about Ong's ideas about how literacy shapes our consciousness-especially in the ways we express ourselves. This intersected with my recent phenomena of inability to express how I'm feeling in words. Too often lately, I've been searching for the right word to explain what I'm feeling, and find that I don't have it. Instead I have to talk around the idea, using lots of words to describe an idea. I wonder, is this a result of literacy?
In a literate culture, we keep records of all the words which describe a certain condition. For example we have recorded words to describe say a pepper soup; it's spicy, torrid, torpid, picante, hot, and so on. But what happens when we don't have a word recorded? Like when I want to describe the spice of a piece of dark chocolate infused with chile? It's not spicy. It's not purely sweet. I don't have word for that taste sensation, so I have to describe it; its a deep, complicated flavor which has a hint of heat in the aftertaste mixed in with the sweetness. Surely there could be a word made for this idea.
I'm toying here with the idea of how much we can understand because of our recorded vocabulary. It seems that we have difficulty communicating when we do not have the vocabulary for our feelings. I can have a feeling, and I know it without words...but can I convey this sensation, without the proper vocabulary, to another person?
It is obvious that we have experiences and sensations outside of out vocabulary. Ask someone to explain, exactly, how a kiss feels. They will probably go on and on, but never be able to fully express the sensation. This would suggest that literate people can understand experiences though we do not have the language to concisely name them or even express them at all.
I wonder what y'all think this expression process looks like for oral cultures. Would an oral culture still run into the problem of not having a words to express a concept? Would this be a problem at all? It seems possible that they might just describe with lots of words the experience and not need to be specific/ use concise vocabulary like literate cultures like to. Let me know what you think...

Dead Diarist?

2005-09-18T17:15:00.000-07:00

I wanted to address a small point that Ong made on dairies, simply because I disagree so strongly.
The quote was, "And for which self am I writing? Myself today? As I think I will be...Questions such as this can and do fill diary writers with anxieties and often enough lead to discontinuation of diaries. The diarist can no longer live with his or her fiction."(101)
As someone who is now a compulsive diarist, I was puzzled, but more flat out in disagreement with Ong about diaries. Knowing which 'self' I address in my diary is not a main concern. Rather, my diary becomes the words I think, or would like to speak, transferred to a piece of paper.
The journaling process is much more akin to record keeping than story telling. I write down what I think is relevant at present (went here, felt this, said that etc.) and I use the diary later as a reference. It is especially useful for tracing patterns that I fall into and locating attitudes that I have throughout a given period.
So while I suppose the question, "Which self am I writing for" is one I asked myself, I don't think it's a question which merits agony or anxiety. I answered it. I answered it in a fairly straight-forward manner because I knew what I wanted my dairy to be. The recording purpose of the diary took preference over any supposed anxiety over imagining an audience and subject position. The subject position Ong gives so much weight to played little to no role in the establishment and upkeep of my journaling efforts.
On the subject of fiction- I thought this was such a ridiculous suggestion. My journal is not a fiction. If anything, it is the most honest and free space I have to express myself. Daily life is often so much more of a fiction. I think about the ways I perform everyday, in small ways and big, because it is impolite, improper or even dangerous to be myself. My journal is read by no one but myself, so within the pages I have the freedom to say, think and feel whatever I want. How, I wonder, does Ong think that is fiction? For me, it is not "the writer can no longer live with his or her fiction", but 'the writer can only live by writing- her non-fiction'.

One Small Step

2005-09-04T23:00:00.000-07:00

There is something rather unsettling about entering into the territory of the blog, but I'm here all the same.