Intertrash

Move On

2008-12-31T10:24:00.001-05:00

Hey, thanks for coming! We've moved over here.

Hubs and Nodes

Dr. Horrible's Lil' Problem- with Spoilers

2008-08-23T12:21:00.003-05:00

So I finally got around to watching Dr. Horrible and overall I was quite impressed. We already knew that Joss could do an entertaining musical (hands up if even despite being a Buffy fan you half expected a trainwreck before actually seeing the musical episode), but it was delightful to see him expanding his chops even further into the genre. The songs were great, the cast was perfect, and Whedon’s favorite theme of blurring the boundaries between heroes and villains was, of course, front and center. It’s also a bit of a pop culture anomaly in that it’s exactly as long as it needs to be. Free from the restraints of television windows and commercial breaks, Whedon uses the online distribution route to craft a story that moves at a pace defined solely by the story itself.

But alas, this isn’t about the exciting possibilities of circumventing the Hollywood production machine, it’s about continuing patterns in Whedon’s bag of tricks. Now I’m as much a Whedon fanboy as any other, but not the kind that believes he can’t be criticized (and believe me, those kind do exist). And for all his feminist-tendencies, Joss just can’t seem to stop killing women. To be fair, he kills a lot of characters and, yes, sometimes they are male. However, Joss is increasingly crossing over into Women in Refrigerators territory.

For those not in the know, WIR is a reference from the comic book medium where female characters are historically given pretty short thrift. Specifically, WIR is a term coined by Gail Simone in direct reference to an issue of the Green Lantern when our hero comes home to find his girlfriend murdered and stuffed in a fridge. Again, people die in comics all the time. But WIR has come to mean a specific circumstance of death, where a female character is murdered solely to further the character development of the male (a related phenomenon is "Dead Man Defrosting," where male characters are often depowered but allowed to return to their former glory while female characters are usually doomed to their fates). It happens a lot (there’s a running list), and it’s the disproportionate usage of this trope between males and females that makes it really disturbing trend.

And this is basically what happens in Dr. Horrible just as it’s happened in many Whedon projects before. Perhaps it’s more jarring in Dr. Horrible since we don’t get to know Penny for very long. And I can predict the criticism. Like– well, of course the death of a lover is going to affect character growth for a hero. Or– Whedon killed Tara to further Willow’s character too. Or even the whole this is much adieu about nothing argument. No matter how you see it, this isn’t a simple matter of black and white. It’s not even a simple matter of just Whedon’s body of work. It’s a matter of a cultural pattern and it’s the pattern that gives any individual instance its weight.

Ever Get the Feeling You've Been Cheated? Edupunk and Subculture. Part One

2008-06-04T07:31:00.004-05:00

So as far as I can tell, this whole Edupunk thing started with this blog post here from Jim Groom. And although I’m partly wary of entering a discussion over what is more of a meme than a movement at this point, there has been some interesting discussion over the past week about what exactly this term could mean. It’s hard to give a still-forming term an exact definition, but:

Edupunk is (or might be)

– a DIY movement that "favors technical accessibility over grand design" (Caufield)

– "instructional use of blogs, wikis, various mashups, and podcasting among many other uses of emerging technologies" (Wikipedia)

– the "rejection of efforts by government and corporate interests in using emerging technologies to exercise control over education" (Wikipedia)

– the tendency of influential educational companies like Blackboard to co-opt and repackage Web 2.0 apps and offering them as their own

– "student-centered, resourceful, teacher or community-created rather than corporate-sourced, and underwritten by a progressive political stance" (Stephen Downes)

There’s some good here. The use of social media in classrooms and the emphasis on production are certainly actions I can get behind. But something about this Edupunk idea seems off to me. Here’s my attempt to work it out.

First off I’ve got to tackle the title itself. Not only because words matter, but because if you wanted to demonstrate words’ tendency to be historically, culturally, and socially situated with a resulting multiplicity of interpretations . . . well, you could do a lot worse than choosing the word "punk." Suffice to say that someone’s reading of that word always ends up saying a hell of a lot more about them than it does any firm defining of what punk is or was. The word choice is sure to inflame passions and opinions precisely because its such a slippery signifier (and if you chart the conversations so far, this is exactly what has happened). If Groom thought this out, I’m sure that’s the main reason he choose to go there. The word choice almost ensures conversation and debate and for that I could never fault it. But there’s no doubt the word brings baggage and divisiveness. If the choice is intended to do more than spark emotion, I have to wonder what benefits the label brings.

Without seeking to define too many specific qualities, I feel safe saying that punk was a subcultural movement born out of a specific historical and social context. Like any movement it’s a mistake to think that punks built anything totally new from scratch. In other words, they took the materiality and philosophies of so-called "straight" culture and reappropriated them into new meanings (for example: punk reconfigured such symbols as metal combs, motor scooters, the Union Jack, the safety pin, etc.). On the semiotic level of remixing culture into new meanings and possibilities, I quite like the notion of a "punk" style to education. I just doubt that this is the main sense in which the word is being used (and punks were far from the first group to do this, so again, why them?).

As Dick Hebdige suggested in his seminal "Subculture: The Meaning of Style," the straight culture always responds back– sending the subculture through a cycle of trivialization, naturalization, and ultimate domestication. Those "original" punks that lament the rise of the "Hot Topic" punk fail to realize that all subcultures go through this cycle. If the subculture had any real legs, it’s already sowed seeds and morphed into something else by the time the so-called "masses" and future generations come along and try to catch up. Perhaps most importantly, I would agree with Hebdige that this process is not something to lament; if for no other reason, it simply is going to happen. Corporations may be showing increasing interest in Web 2.0 technology– and they may often approach them in ways that longtime or early adopters view as off or bastardized– but their doing so is ultimately part of a social cycle that is necessary for the original ideas to grow or progress.

The subculture always comes with an air of elitism, a certain distrust of popularity, and a very modern fear of the masses (or shall I say, of the construction of something called the masses). And this is not critique, for I think subcultures are important and these qualities act as a certain social glue that produces identity and belonging amongst the subculture’s members. But these are also part of the reason subcultures like punk are always doomed to eventually scatter. Even if the values and beliefs of punk had been adopted by large numbers of people (this assumes that even the original members could agree on what those values and beliefs were) in a manner that the original members did not view as co-opting or impure, the punk movement still would have fallen apart. The subculture occupies a very strange place. It is full of people claiming to have a better way, a better method, a better philosophy– but only a select few are capable of interpreting or embodying it properly. The subcultural movement is a special kind of movement that advocates social change without actually wanting it to happen on any grand scale.

All this for me to suggest that "Edupunk" is a curiously backwards looking term for a supposed movement that supposedly seeks to look forward. As many of the Edupunk critiques have already pointed out: there really isn’t anything new in its philosophy or pedagogy so far. Again, not a problem– nothing can make a claim to complete newness. But since there is nothing new here, I think it’s safe to suggest that the labeling is perhaps the only relevant feature (and therefore I don’t think I’m simply linguistically knit-picking). The term chooses to not only align itself with the idea of subculture, but with the most idealistic notion of subculture– an ideal that posits an us against them mentality at odds with the dialectic relationship between the perceived opposing forces. Is this a mindset we want to bring to education?

Lost Finale a Wee Bit Anticlimactic

2008-05-30T08:11:00.004-05:00

Lost capped off an amazing season last night with a two hour episode. Lost season finales have earned a reputation for game-changing events and providing answers to the show’s infinite questions (even if those answers always beget more questions). Although last night’s episode was certainly exciting and overall incredibly rewarding; at the same time, something felt anticlimactic. Here’s some thoughts.

Yes, thar be spoilers. Proceed at your own spoilerage.

First the good. Keamy and Sayid’s brawl was visceral and brutal– really, who else could have gone up against that psychopath and lasted so long? Desmond and Penny’s reunion was not only genuinely heartwarming, but also a true surprise (really thought the show would hold that one back for a little longer). Ben continued to be the most fascinating character on television, and as someone on the TWOP boards said, he should get an emmy for his single word response to having killed all the people on the freighter . . . "so?" Poor Sawyer got a little short changed this season, but his sacrificial leap from the helicopter was another great reminder of how far this character has come.

So why the anticlimactic feeling? One of Lost’s greatest strengths is its willingness to explore narrative in complexly fascinating ways. It’s complete understatement to simply say the first three seasons utilized flashbacks. Such a statement doesn’t account for the way these flashbacks (when at their best) would weave with the current narrative and simultaneously weave connections between the Oceanic passengers pre-crash. Sometimes flashbacks would not be– tricking the audience with brilliant misdirection (the opening of season two with Desmond in the hatch being a prime example of this). The episode showing the first few island days from the Tailies’ perspective was entirely flashback.. Even the much fan-hated characters of Paulo and Nikki provided an opportunity to flash back to island events from the perspectives of characters never seen on screen before. By the end of season three when the show first leapt into the future, it was clear that Lost was going to take television narrative practices to new levels of depth.

As enjoyable as the flash forwards have been to the master narrative, last night’s finale was the first sign of a small crack in the plan. So we knew the island was going to be moved (flash forwards proved that neither Ben or Widmore currently know where it is). So obviously the Oceanic Six (all revealed in FF by mid-season) had to be off the island. With all of them on the helicopter this seemed secure, except the presence of Sawyer who didn’t jibe with what we know in the future. Sawyer’s jump? Hardly surprising. Now, the first rule of good stagewriting is– if you show a gun on the wall in act one, that gun better go off in the final act. So obviously the freighter was going to blow up. Jin is dead in the future, so obviously he was going down with the ship. Michael too– for either redemption or punishment purposes: you decide. One could argue the only unknown was Desmond’s fate. But considering how important a Penny/Desmond reunion is to the show, this simply wasn’t going to happen.

The show’s timelines had to close in on themselves and I’m excited to see where the show will go next season. But due to this season’s flash forwarding device, much of this finale seemed to lack the crucial element of mind blowing surprise that has become so crucial to the Lost formula. I’ll admit that seeing the "how" of what we know will happen is still engaging; and for the most part, it’s been a narrative risk that widely paid off. But even a more surprising ending might have spared this feeling in me. But really, who else could have been in the coffin? By the end of the first hour it was clear that the coffin reveal would be the big-cliffhanger so it had to be someone incredibly significant. Considering the placements of the other characters it could only have been Ben or Locke. Although death is hardly dead on this show, Ben just wouldn’t make sense. And considering Jack was the main person effected by this death, who else but his thematic opposite? The man of lost reason visiting the man of (apparently) dead faith.

So, still an excellent episode. And still a show willing to take narrative risks. By the time Lost ends and has left a brilliant, cohesive six-season journey, this finale will likely look much better. But on the basis of a moment in a season’s time right before an eight month break, I wanted a bit more to savor.

Guitar Hero Songs Bringing New Appreciations

2008-05-29T07:50:00.002-05:00

I’ve been playing a whole lot of Guitar Hero 3 on my Wii. The whole experience is really a lot more fun than jumping around your living room with a plastic guitar should ever be. Here’s what I’m not going to do in this post. I’m not going to address any of the arguments about how GH has ruined the playing of actual guitars, or how people would be better served using that time to learn a "real" instrument. I think the whole argument is silly and others have addressed both sides quite aptly. Instead, I’m struck by how many times a GH player ends up listening to the same songs over and over in their attempts to master them. And due either to the high-level of interactivity or a genius selection process by the developers (likely a combo of both) most of the songs really don’t get old or tired to the ears. And as someone who loves music, the re-experiencing some classic songs has been really interesting.

So without further adieu, here is my list of songs that GH3 has reminded me of and brought new appreciation to.

Sunshine of Your Love/Cream
Did anything else sound like this in 1968? Crunchy and infectious guitar/bass lines based on a D blues scales and simple but off-beat drums that drive the whole thing. Throw in a signature solo from Clapton and you’ve got perfection. I’d forgotten how simply awesome this song is.

Anarchy in the UK/The Sex Pistols
I still remember hearing this song for the first time. I was probably fifteen-years old and a friend of mine put it at the end of an otherwise new-wavey mix-tape. I’d simply never heard anything like it before. And although I’ve always appreciated the song for its cultural and historical significance, it has never actually been a staple in my "listen to" mix. Maybe that was a mistake. Highly enjoyable, full of piss and vinegar, and distinctly brilliant in the way only people pretending like they just don’t care could produce. Interestingly, the band recorded a new version for the game because the original masters could not be found. I need to go listen to the original again to see how much my new found appreciation is based on this 2008 version.

The Cult of Personality/ Living Colour
I remember this 1989 song from MTV and don’t recall ever being a fan. Now I simply love the snaking guitar work and wonder why these guys never got bigger than they did.

Slow Ride/Foghat
Some songs, for what ever reason, become parodies of themselves (think drunken frat boys yelling out "Free Bird" at any random concert or the riff to "Stairway to Heaven" being banned in guitar shops). I’ve always felt this way about Slow Ride. But how many songs so perfectly embody their message? As Dave Peverett sings "slow ride, take it easy," long extended notes stretch through your ears and lull you into the groove. Then the "slow downs" crash slightly dissonantly– breaking the trance and reminding you how good it was to be there.

Talk Dirty to Me/Posion
That’s right, I said it. It’s in print and now on the web for all to see. Listen, I would never argue for Poison as a classic band and this song will certainly never make a list of greatest tracks ever. But there was a time my friends when this brand of hair metal rock ruled the world, and it didn’t rule the world for no reason. Unapologetically juvenile, almost lazy in the simplicity of its catchy main riff, and perfectly cheesy in its band callout ("CC pick up that guitar and talk to me!). Who needs subtext or metaphor when you can subtle for three minutes of sexual earnestness that (ironically?, contradictingly?, appropriately?) is really about as dirty as holding hands at the point in the 1950s?

Play Track 4 Again

2008-05-27T06:19:00.001-05:00

Lately I’ve been listening to some new bands on a scale I likely haven’t done for awhile. Discovering new bands is always an exciting experience, and there is still little that compares to the rush of hearing a great album for the first time (even in this age of the Itunes single). Yet, as I’ve been listening the past few weeks, I’ve found myself pondering the role of music in my life at various time periods. And as much as I still love music, my practices and involvement have changed drastically since my teen years and I lack any explanation for why.

Around age fifteen I started to live and breathe music. Having a nine year older sister with suburb taste for music off the mainstream’s beaten path certainly helped. I recall raiding her room almost every day to pluck new gems. Bands with funny names like: Echo and the Bunnyman, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The Mission U.K., Nitzer Ebb, and a slew of others. I didn’t just listen to these albums, I immersed myself in them. I knew the names of all the band members. I knew the name of every song on an album and the track order. I scoured liner notes and sought out the bands’ histories. I knew all of a band’s other albums and actively sought to have entire catalogues (often having to place special overseas orders for incredibly pricey Eps or CD singles). As I tried to catch up on the past, there were wonderful shows like MTV’s "120 Minutes." Sundays at midnight (the only time MTV would dare play this kind of music) were a time of glorious research into up and coming bands. Two of my favorite bands to this day (Helium and The Geraldine Fibbers) were both discovered in the wee hours of the morning when artists like Mariah Carey would never be playing.

Of course, new wave became old and so-called "alternative" music had a popularity boom and subsequent bust that eventually begged the question "alternative to what?" At this point, I likely fell into a trap that all good lil’ post-alternative, indie hipsters must go through (oh the sarcasm is rich on that last line). If you’re at all like me (or ever have been), you know it well: "nobody’s making good music anymore. All the new stuff is crap."

This is obviously not true now, and likely has never been. No matter what the mainstream industry is pumping out, there’s always going to be lesser known artists doing there thing somewhere on the margins. Not to mention that almost completely useless category of "mainstream" in the first place and the silly practice of ignoring any music that might fit that category simply because it might fit that category (something I’ve been guilty of in the past). So if "good" new music has always been out there somewhere . . . what happened? Over the past decade I’ve certainly discovered less new bands than ever before in my music listening life. I’ve played old favorites over and over to the point of losing CDs from wear and tear. Even though web technology makes browsing for new gems easier than ever before (no more waiting till midnight on Sundays!) I rarely find myself doing it. And even when I have discovered new bands, the more obsessive elements of my past practices have certainly waned. I never experience the desperate need to have a band’s entire catalogue anymore. My desire for knowledge about the band themselves is usually limited to wanting to know what city they’re from. If I buy a CD, I’m much more likely to know I totally dig "Track 4" over the exact title of the song. And that’s even if I buy the full album. The ability to download single tracks has made my oddly OK with only having whatever tracks from a band I can happen to get (a notion that would have made me shudder in horror a mere ten years ago).

The reasons? I’m sure they’re varied and maybe not even that important to figure out. It could be a matter of: having more varied interests now, having less disposable income, having less time, or maybe they really don’t make ‘em like they use to (oh lord, maybe I am getting old). What’s more important than why is probably the feeling of something lost when I ponder these changes. It’s a sweet and warm nostalgic sense of loss, which only tells me that all these practices were always about so much more than merely music.

The Problematic Wording of Teacher Evaluation Forms

2008-05-09T07:12:00.001-05:00

Getting the results of student evaluations is always a fun end of semester ritual. I’m always quite pleased with them, and they overall let me know that I’m being effective in the ways I strive hard to be. I’m always especially tickled by the extended written comments that get typed out for you at the end of the report. I find these comments much more insightful than a bubbled in response to some questions that are often oddly worded or insufficiently answered by a strongly-agree to strongly-disagree scale.

Which leads me to my main grumble of the morning. I realize that these evaluation forms need some sort of standardized method. Student response would indeed be poor if all students were voluntarily asked to write extended evaluations of the course (which is why I have them write a letter to me at the end of the semester). However, especially in a subject approached so differently by every instructor, the questions on these evaluations are often unreflective of the way I teach my course. For example, I took a big hit on the statement: "My instructor taught me to read critically." Now from my point of view, almost every single day of the class involved how to read critically. But I think students see that statement and read the word "read" as applying only to traditional word-based texts. So the fact that we critically "read" photographs, websites, physical space, music, and other multimodal texts does not register to the students when faced with this statement’s wording. Clearly these evaluative forms are heavily biased towards traditional texts. Since I reckon most instructors are still primarily focused on such texts this does technically make sense. Doesn’t make it less frustrating.

I also end up taking a hit on statements that have to do with integrating revision into the course assignments. Now this one I’m tempted to take a bit more seriously. However, I still haven’t found a way to incorporate traditional notions of revision into multimodal assignments. For example, I often have my students make a photobook profiling a club on the Purdue campus. If the photos don’t turn out well it’s hardly realistic for me to expect them to go get new ones. The club might not be available to meet. Sure there are post-process editing that can be done to the photos, but this doesn’t always address the problems. Plus, many students make these photobooks in a cut-and-paste scrapbook style. It’s not really feasible for them to rip the photos off the page and move them somewhere else. There’s really no other option but to start from scratch, and I’m usually focused on the next assignment by then.

To counter this problem, I incorporate a number of checkpoints along the way in any project. Take the photobook. I check photos as they’re being taken. I ask for sketches of page layouts. I ask for reflective writings about where they are in their composing process. I’d like to consider this an integrated form of revision that happens all throughout the production. But again– the evaluation question merely asks if revision was incorporated and I’m not sure my students see it that way.

In the end, I’m not sure how much weight these evaluations hold with the powers that be. They affect me more on the personal level as I ponder how to continually be a better teacher. There’s some irony here too. My class focuses a lot on how language is tricky, unreliable, and fraught with interpretive problems. I think my students "get" this. And then? My evaluations take a hit based on these very issues. I guess this proves my point.

Will Iron Man Movie Fans Accept the Iron Man Comic Character?

2008-05-04T07:40:00.005-05:00

I’m not convinced that Hollywoodblockbusters featuring comic book characters have any effect on the sales of said comic book titles. The Spider-Man movies did top dollar, but how many of those people went and bought a Spider-Man comic? Maybe a few. But how many stuck with the title; or in other words, how many new comic fans do these popular movies produce? Now I’m not saying this needs to happen. And I’m certainly not one of those fanboys who lament every change to the source material to get it movie-ready (I recognize the difference in medium and audience). I suppose it’s more frustrating than everything. The superhero comic is a wonderful and fascinating entertainment genre that has played a large role in my life, so it’s frustrating to see the form only get accolades in movie form while the source material struggles to survive.

So now we have Iron Man (which I have not seen but do look forward to). Iron Man is not one of the more popular Marvel heroes in the minds of non-comic fans. Actually I’d be surprised if many non-comic fans had ever heard of him (or realize that the movie character comes with a comic book history). However, the character is an interesting case and it’s a very strange time for him to have a movie coming out– especially if movie fans end up making the jump to comics. See, Iron Man is actually very much at the center of the Marvel comic line right now. Marvel comics have a shared continuity– meaning they all exist in the same world and the events of individual titles have ramifications and cross-over effects in all the other ones. I don’t even personally read Iron Man’s core title, but he’s all over the events of the comics I do read. And the most interesting thing about his movie coming out right now? Well . . . at the moment, Iron Man is a bit of a dick.

That may be a bit unfair. Let’s say he’s complicated right now (and let’s be honest, as an alcoholic womanizer the character has always been a bit of a dick). He was instrumental in the Superhero Registration act during Marvel’s Civil War and did a whole lot of questionable things along the way (you know, like recruiting supervillians to hunt down heroes who wouldn’t reveal their identities and go work for the government). His new armor capabilities can also technically tap into all the world’s information databases and world satellites . . . yeah, make no mistake, Iron Man is Big Brother. Then there’s that whole people partially blaming him for the death of Captain America thing– not a good way to make friends.

Not knowing yet exactly how he’s portrayed in the movie, how will movie fans heading to the comic shop react to this complex Machiavellian character? Interestingly, Marvel is launching a new Iron Man series this month, with a new number one. I suspect his more questionable sides will be downplayed in this series, and this series is the one Marvel suspects potential new fans will pick up. This might be a smart business move but ultimately bad for comics. If the medium wants more fans and more respect it needs to make a lot of changes. One of them is allowing non-comic fans to see the complexity of characters and storylines that are woven on a monthly basis. Pandering to them with simplified portrayals will only further the idea of comics as kiddified-simplicity. I guess we shall wait and see.

Spamming Your Facebook Friends

2008-03-09T08:40:00.003-05:00

Sometimes you just want to know what world city you should live in. Or maybe what 90's song best encompasses your being. Sometimes it’s of fundamental importance to know what Everybody Loves Raymond character you are, you know? And thanks to Facebook apps, these lingering questions and more are now answerable by answering a few multiple choice questions. I’m not sure how I ever lived before without knowing what Roman philosopher I’m most like (Cicero, for those keeping track at home), but life has certainly made more sense lately.

Despite the somewhat snarky tone, I am an unabashed fan of these silly lil’ quizzes. And if you happen to run in the same Facebook network as I, the chances are you’ve also dabbled a time or two. Why the love? I don’t know– you want the academic answer? You wanna hear something about how postmodern identity is so fluid that our fragmented selves allow representation in . . . hell, never mind, not even gonna try. As I said in the opening paragraph, sometimes you just wanna know what alcohol you would be.

But lately it seems that the Facebook powers that be are increasingly locking these precious answers unless you choose to spam your friends with a request to also add the app. And I’m not talking one or two of your closest pals; most of the time, upwards of eight to twelve friends must be sent an invite before you can get an answer. Are your friends this understanding? Do they understand why you simply must know what cast member of The Hills you should date? Why any amount of spam may be necessary to know that Heidi Montag is your soulmate?

It’s not just the idea of being turned into a spam generator. It’s the feeling of forced social networking. Is Facebook not big enough? Are their not enough FB junkies out there to perpetuate the site without this forced connecting? Often there are one or two friends who I know for sure will be interested in hearing about an app I added. More often then not, I add apps just by browsing other people’s profiles and finding something interesting. Is this model not effective enough?

So come on Facebook. Give me my quiz results without spamming by entire social network. Trust me, when they find out that I’m Jacques Derrida they will come running to discover the essence of their own inner French philosopher.

Buffy Gets the Girl

2008-03-07T09:56:00.004-05:00

So it’s not exactly national news (comic books so rarely get that: Superman dying, Captain America assassinated, Spider-Man unmasking), but the intertubes are likely about to crack wide open at a little scene in Joss Whedon’s current Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic. ABC news (of all places) has already chimed in with the suggestion that the whole thing is merely a marketing ploy. Right. Joss Whedon, a man who appears to radiate love, respect, and integrity for his character creations, has approved a development that will send people in fits of rabid excitement towards the (let’s face it) niche market that is comic books. Yeah, that makes sense.

Oh, right, the hoopla? Buffy had sex with another woman. Another slayer named Satsu has fallen in love with our titular hero– and in classic Whedon style– we readers are spared the endless will-they or won’t-they drama over a span of a hundred issues. They did. And to quote Buffy, "Wow." Immediately following the romp (which no, is not depicted you pervs), we are treated to a classic slapstick montage where the other cast of characters one-by-one end up storming into the bedroom to warn Buffy about an impending attack on the Slayer stronghold. Good stuff.

So should this become hoopla? Well, people are going to react the way they’re going to react, and the net is the place for a myriad of reactions to come out (and it’s already happening). I already suggested that the "marketing ploy" idea is kinda ludicrous. Honestly, this is kind of a big deal. Although gay characters are increasingly joining the ranks of narrative fictions in all genres, main characters rarely (if ever) experiment with their sexuality. If that happens at all, the experimentation is reserved for side or occasional characters– not the emotional core of the series. At the same time, it’s not really that big a deal. In other words, the notion that some people’s first thoughts are "marketing ploy" upon hearing that a beloved series is having their main character explore their sexuality truly speaks volumes about how far our country still needs to go in not treating homosexuality as completely other, odd, or deviant. I know, big news, huh?

That’s another reaction I’m seeing so far– the label game. Some fans are quibbling: does this mean Buffy has gone lesbian? Can we call her gay now? Is she bi-sexual? Bi-curious? I’ll let others parse this one out; I’m not too into the label game and would rather wait and see how this story unfolds.

If not a "marketing ploy" there are a few voices on the net so far that are aghast. Their basic argument is that Buffy has never shown any sexual interest in women; therefore, this development rings false and is going to wreck the character. Color me most confused on this one. Previous interest in women? Perhaps not. But the girl has slept with two undead vampires which certainly demonstrates an open-mindedness to the notion that love and attraction should not be restricted to simplistic categories and labels. Then let’s see . . . her best friend is a lesbian, so Buffy has already had plenty of experience watching how two women can have a loving and meaningful relationship. And shall we recall that Buffy was, well, a little freaked out when she first learned that Willow had gone to the girl side. Not because she’s homophobic, but because she’s a wonderfully complex and fleshed-out character that’s allowed to experience a full range of very human reactions to the often messy and surprising emotional minefield of life.

In the series right now, Buffy is lonely, Buffy feels isolated, and Buffy is still reeling from empowering hundreds of women with the shared power of slayerness. She’s also a character who has always loved deeply and looked for love in her life. So another female has professed this love, and Buffy has responded. Will it end up being a mistake? Will there be regrets? Who knows. I’ll keep reading for those developments. But the Buffy series has always been at its core about the strength of women, the connection of friends, and the impossibility of making it in this world alone. This development could not make more sense in my humble opinion. As with all great texts, I reckon that how the text reads the individual is going to continue to be more interesting than how they read the text.

The Wii Controller and Complexity

2008-01-08T20:39:00.000-05:00

Over at Storygeek, Mark Bell (who I dined with once and will likely see again as CCCCs approaches) recently blogged about the complexity of video game controllers. He graphed the number of "interacting elements" on a variety of console controllers from the Atari 2600 up to the PS3 and the Wii. It’s probably no big surprise that the complexity of controllers has steadily increased across the new generations of systems. The PS3 has a whopping eighteen interactive elements! And then we get to the Wii– already widely heralded for being a more accessible system for casual gamers with its simpler (and familiar remote-like) control scheme.

Although I agree with Bell that the Wii remote has remarkably less interacting elements, I’m not willing to go further and suggest that it is therefore less complex. What I think we have with the Wii controller is a very different kind of complexity that is fascinating in its own right. If you follow the Wii press, it’s the simpler games that are getting the most play and attention. In-line with Nintendo’s reaching out to new gamers, the commercials are full of Wii Tennis, Golf, Bowling, and the mini-games that highlight how the controller can mimic real bodily movements on the screen. If we look at the Wii controller as swing, move around, then swing again; then yes, I suppose it’s not all that complex (yet still a boat load of fun). However, Nintendo has always excelled at its in-house game franchises, and this is where the Wii really shines. I had the chance to play Metroid Prime 3 over Christmas Break and was amazed at the complexity. I’ve played a slew of FPSs in my life, and playing Metroid felt like starting from scratch. In a gross simplification, the Wii remote is your eyes. You look and aim by moving the remote across the screen. Meanwhile, you have the nunchuck knob in your other hand controlling forward, backward, and strafing movements. It’s impossible to describe how hard this is at first, and even more impossible to describe how you’ll never want to go back to any other FPS control scheme once you master it.

Today I started playing Super Mario Galaxy. After only an hour I can honestly say this is the most pure fun and joy I’ve had playing a video game in a long time. Once again, the seemingly simple Wii remote is being worked to wonderful capacity. As you move with the nunchuck, you’re jumping and shooting with the remote. The remote is also simultaneously being waved across the screen (almost constantly) to pick up a number of star fragments. On other controllers, yes there are a number of interactive elements. But my left hand was always in charge of movement and maybe pushing a trigger. In Galaxy my left hand is jumping, shooting, and shaking in a constant dance. From a game play perspective, there’s a world of mental difference between needing to shoot, jump, and hit tiny little points on the screen with a tiny little cursor. I think this is where the true complexity of the Wii remote lies. Although limited in interactive elements and buttons, those limited options are being simultaneously applied to a vast array of different mental tasks (and often at blitzkrieg speeds). How Nintendo plans to continue to push this complexity should be very interesting.

End of Year Blog Wrap Up

2007-12-29T10:24:00.001-05:00

As 2007 wraps up, I thought I’d look back over the blog posts of the last year and see if I could offer any updates or extended reflections. Here’s what I got.

The Death of Myspace
Back in April, I wrote a piece on Myspace Apologism– the phenomenon (especially amongst teens) of apologizing for having a Myspace account even though they check it like fifty-seven times a day. This last semester my English 106 class officially informed me that Myspace is sooooo dead. So they’re twenty teens in Indiana, hardly a representative sample, but I don’t doubt this. Almost everyone in the class had a Facebook page and a lot of them were quick to "friend" their kind English professor. I’m not sad to see Myspace trendiness start to fall. If for no other reason, it’s teaching a generation of teens some horrible practices in regards to visual rhetoric and web design. Yuck.

The X-13D Revealed
In May I blogged about Dorito’s new X-13D chips. The "mystery" flavor was packaged in a slick and chic black bag with only the most minimal of clues as to what said flavor might be. In a brilliant (and evil) marketing ploy, Doritos encouraged consumers to buy a bag of chips that they had no idea about and gave them a chance to suggest a title on their website (a website that represented the worst Flash-abuse possible). I think the winner also got a year’s supply of the nasty concoction (it tasted horrible). Well, the chips have disappeared from shelves and I couldn’t recall ever hearing or reading about the results. After a quick web search, I discovered that the X-13D has officially been branded the Cheeseburger Dorito. Just thought you’d like to know. My guess was Tomato Soup and Grilled Cheese; which frankly, sounds a lot more innovative and interesting.

Still Waiting for Lost
In late May I geekgasmed over the Lost finale, and here we are in late December and the new season of Lost is still over a month away. The scheduling move was originally part of a plan to air the whole mini-season uninterrupted. Now it’s looking like even the late start will be problematic due to the Hollywood writer’s strike. Although the wait and possible interruption are frustrating, it’s hard to mind when the product is so excellent. When the series ends, I firmly believe Lost as a whole will be a brilliant series that goes down in history (at a time when scripted drama is on life support and "reality" rules). Take your time ladies and gentleman.

Hermoine Lives Contrary to Reports
In July, a contestant in a live televised hot dog eating contest ran across the stage with a sign reading "On July 21st Hermione Dies." The stunt was believed to be a huge spoiler for the final Harry Potter novel– a practice that happens all the time on the net but rarely crosses over to network television. Hermione, of course, did not kick the bucket and the idea that she would was never all that believable. At the time I asked if hot dog dude’s ploy was just mean jackassery or some brilliant culture jamming? Now we can add: is it still culture jamming if your jam is based on misinformation? I reckon it depends on intent (and I’ve always felt I was probably giving the guy too much credit). If the intent was to illuminate the cracks in the old media system then I guess it doesn’t matter that Hermione didn’t die. The point could have been to simply get a message out in a medium that doesn’t really openly allow the public to do so. Or, as I previously concluded, the guy was just being a jackass.

Come Together, Right Now, Over the Wii
In September I speculated about the cross-over of video game simulations to "real" life skills, using Guitar Hero as my example. In that time, a lil game named Rock Band has appeared, in which players get to simulate an entire (surprise) rock band. The game comes with a miniature drum set, which as far as I can tell, requires pretty much "real" drumming to pull off successfully. Even more interesting, my friend Jaci reports that a group of her male friends have the game and have started acting in some interesting ways. Apparently, the boys talk about "their band," ask when the next "practice" session is, and constantly talk about their gaming experience the way people in "real" bands do. In hindsight, I don’t think the point is that video games can potentially simulate the skills of real life. Maybe it’s more interesting that games can bring people together into new social formations that are potentially even rarer and harder to experience than solo-based skills. I’ve been in a few bands throughout my life, and band comradery is probably something rarer to come by than learning how to play an instrument. If a game like Rock Band can accomplish that feeling of connection amongst a group of friends, it proves that we are still only beginning to discover what video games can accomplish.

Dorky Nostalgia Starring the NES and the Memory of Christmas Past

2007-12-24T10:34:00.001-05:00

The Christmas eve of 1986 is really the only one that truly stands out in my memories. Raised pretty much a godless heathen, Christmas in the Pepper house was more a going through the motions– fancy dinner, overly-tinseled tree, and a couple presents– entirely devoid of religious connotations. And in 1986 I was eleven years old and can vividly recall the giddy sensation of tearing into a large paper covered box to reveal the original Nintendo Entertainment System in all its 8-bit glory. Oh, I’d already had an Atari and probably played the living hell out of it; but leaping from the Atari to the NES is like going from a black and white television to a color one. And my one goal in life was to play Super Mario Brothers until my fingers bled or I passed out (you know, whichever happened first). The ‘rents bought me SMB along with Kung-Fu (truly one of the first side scrolling fighter games– notable now for very little more than that) and I sat down for a Christmas eve of pure joy. I recall going to bed that night and not being able to get the tiny pixilated Mario out of my head. I think I literally burned those early Mario levels into my cerebellum.

In my life I’ve owned an Atari, an NES, a Commodore 64, a Turbografix 16, a Super Nintendo, a Sega Genesis, a Playstation, a Playstation 2, and an Xbox. Although each new system has brought an initial rush of excitement and subsequent hours of fun, nothing has ever compared to the thrill of getting that NES on Christmas eve. In fact, I really can’t remember the first day spent with any of those other systems. Maybe it was a combination of numerous factors: being eleven years old, experiencing a giant technological leap, having to wait for that "special" night, and being a sixth-grader whose life really could be simple enough that a video game system could be just about the most important and exciting thing in the world. None of those factors will ever come together again, and I’m not really saying that I wish they would. I still love video games, in an academic, intellectual, entertainment, and recreational sense; however, I guess it would be a bit odd if the release of a new system became a benchmark memory in the life of 32 year old man. Still, that was my happiest and strongest Christmas memory, and I suppose today is as good as any day to recall those things.

Part of the reason all this is on my mind is due to the slight pain in my shoulders and elbows as I type these words. The culprit? The Nintendo Wii that currently sits next to my television, borrowed from my friend Morgan while I housesit her cats. The Wii definitely has that wow factor– the feeling in an aging gamer that they’re experiencing something new and interacting with video games in ways never done before. It must be that lil bit of sentimental fool that dwells deep inside me, but I imagine some young kids getting a Wii either tonight or tomorrow morning and experiencing something like I did over twenty-one years ago. Kids having their oh so innocent dreams come true and surrendering to some sweet video gaming fun. I’m a bit jealous. Not cause they’re getting a Wii and I’m not (grumble grumble), but because even if I did, I can never again tap that pure space of memory making glee in quite the same way.

I leave you with this. Merry Christmas everybody.

Jamie Lynn Spears Exposes that Teens Have Sex . . . World Almost Comes to End in Shock

2007-12-23T09:26:00.001-05:00

Just in case you’ve been living under a rock, Jamie-Lynn Spears (Britney’s sixteen-year old little sis) officially announced her pregnancy last week. The baby daddy is her longtime nineteen-year old boyfriend whom she met in church. Yep, in church. That’s really beautiful; go ahead and insert your own joke here.

I know there are certain factions of our society who don’t want to admit this, but (big shocker coming here, prepare yourself) teenagers have sex. Yes, and sometimes they do it even younger than Spears Jr. Perhaps even more shocking to some people, they are not always doing it without thought or emotion; in other words, teenagers are capable of having intense emotional relationships that can lead to (for lack of a better word) genuine expressions of sexual desire. I’m just saying this isn’t all that scandalous, except for the tinsey weensy little fact that Jamie’s sister happens to be the tabloid world’s favorite hot mess.

Well, that and the fact that she’s the star of a hugely popular show on the kids’ network Nickelodeon. A show that most assuredly is going to be cancelled now. And therein lies the most interesting aspect of this whole thing for me. You may recall the Vanessa Hudgens scandal from a few months ago. The seventeen-year old star of Disney’s hugely popular "High School Musical" apparently took some nekkie photos of herself to show her boyfriend; and of course, they surfaced on the net. Talk instantly turned to how the recently released HSM2 was sure to tank and how Hudgen’s would certainly have to be dropped from HSM3.

Call me an uber-liberal, but I don’t think having sex with your longtime boyfriend or taking nude photos of yourself for a boyfriend are all that disturbing or shocking affairs. Yes, we could quibble about Spears’ and friend’s method of protecting themselves (I’m not sure if this has been addressed yet), and we could even quibble about the common sense of someone as popular as Hudgens taking such pics when she works for Disney. But at the end of the day, I’m still surprised by the public damnations of both these girls. Especially on the web, both girls have been labeled "sluts," "whores," and every other sexually-based insult under the sun. Even some fans have said they’ve lost all respect for her and will never support her show or future products again.

It’s all so predictably sad really. We have a culture that is increasingly encouraging young girls to grow up faster, be sexy earlier, and offer their sexualized selves up for public display and consumption. However, if they prove to actually be having sex, or display sexuality in their private lives, then they are punished for the transgression. Mixed message? Uh . . . yeah. Here’s a thought. Instead of cancelling Zoey 101 (a program, I must admit, that just hasn’t crossed my viewing path), why not use this as an opportunity to fictionally explore some of the issues that Spears’ real life developments bring to the forefront? If Zoey and Spears really have millions of young female fans, what message does yanking the show give? That once a girl gets pregnant she is used up, no longer fit for public viewing, and must be tucked and hidden away? Why not have the character of Zoey get pregnant and subsequently explore the perils of teen pregnancy. Sure, it’s got the chance of being a bit schmaltzy and after-school specially. But done well, who knows?

I doubt this will happen. Instead, Jamie Lynn has bought herself a one-way ticket to constant tabloid coverage over the next year. So in our current celebrity culture I guess that means, uh, she’s made it after all?

Social Networking and Debates About Virtual Self/Selves

2007-12-19T11:18:00.000-05:00

In a recent article from The New Atlantis, Christine Rosen writes extensively about social-networking sites and paints a fairly stark picture. With section titles such as "The New Taxonomy of Friendship" and "Status-Seekers," Rosen paints a picture of social interaction morphing into a giant Pokemon mentality of gotta-catch-em-all status battles where "friends" are publically paraded around (pitted against each other), then tucked away and occasionally petted (or superpoked) while we collect some more (Pokemon metaphor mine, but I think an effective one). Here are my two "favorite" quotes:

"In investing so much energy into improving how we present ourselves online, are we missing chances to genuinely improve ourselves?"

"[The popularity of social networking sites] shows a desire to avoid the vulnerability and uncertainty that true friendship entails. Real intimacy requires risk—the risk of disapproval, of heartache, of being thought a fool. Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen."

First, I’m fascinated by the odd choice implied in the first quote. So we either "present" ourselves online or we "improve" ourselves (supposedly in the "real" world)? I fail to see how those are connected; I fail to see why it has to be an either/or choice. Even if we agree with the premises (which I don’t) why can’t someone work on accomplishing both? There’s also an implication that presenting ourselves online can not be a method of improving ourselves (note the further implication that social-networking should intrinsically involve self-improvement in the first place). But I do think the presentation of our online selves can be done in the name of self-improvement– it just might not be the self that Rosen seems to think "genuinely" matters. What seems at stake here is the continuing debate about identity itself– between people who see identity as fluid playful fracturedness and those who seek a cohesive structured enlightenment-style form. I’m obviously in the "playful" camp; and subsequently, see our online selves as valid and genuine expressions of who we are, who we think we are, or who we’d like to be. Be it our representations on Facebook or Myspace, our avatar in Second Life, or our words on a blog, I find it silly to think that such identity representation/presentation is not "genuine" or constructive to our meat space selves (equally fractured, btw). Why this hair-triggered reaction to think that constructing online (digital) versions of ourselves has to be counterproductive to our fleshy selves instead of viewed as an expansion, rearticulation, or playful (productive) fantasy?

Moving to the second quote, I’m bothered by Rosen’s willingness to offer a definition of friendship that is "true" and "real." Although, I’m not surprised by her willingness considering it makes perfect sense with her seemingly modernist notion of identity. Who are we to define what friendship should be, or what functions it should serve, for anyone else? Especially when (and I agree with Rosen on this) the concept of friendship is changing as we progress further and further into a digital age. Let’s remove the word "real" and ask if intimacy involves "risk," rather of heartache or disapproval? Yeah, I can get onboard with that. But does such a risk not occur on social-networking sites; is such risk not applicable to our virtual selves? Of course it does. As controversial as this example could prove, take the recent suicide of a fourteen-year old girl who was mocked and harassed on Myspace (later to find out that the source of the insults was an adult parent of one of the girl’s friends). Obviously, this is a horrible and tragic tale, and it also highlights some of the challenges our society faces in an online and networked world. However, the tale also highlights the very raw and real emotions and communication currently occurring on social-networking sites. In fact, I would argue that the less seriously we take the friendships and communication on social-networking sites, the more likely the possibility of seeing more tragic tales like this one.

Despite my quibbles, this article is still worth a read, and I also do agree with many of Rosen’s points. More importantly, I think we need more intelligent people offering diverse points of view on what these sites mean to the changing notions of friendship, interaction, and identity. Rosen ultimately offers a number of valid points; however, the dialogue needs to be tempered with the positive aspects of social-networking sites and what it means that so many millions of people have so quickly integrated them into their lives.

The Spider-Man Marriage is Under Threat and Yes, People Care

2007-12-18T09:08:00.001-05:00

So your eighty-something aunt is dying and despite all your superpowers, the only way to save her life is to make a deal with the devil that will essentially erase your marriage to a hot redhead from the entire worlds’ memory. This ever happened to you?

Well, it’s happening to the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man in his current titles. And the move is the coup de grace of J Michael Straczynski’s controversial run on the title (in which Spider-Man unmasked to the public, spouted mystical mumbo jumbo to Spider-Gods, and Gwen Stacy was retconned into the Green Goblin’s baby mama . . . don’t ask). Marvel editor-in-chief, Joe Quesada, has long expressed hatred for the Spider marriage, and we’re only one issue away from finding out if he’s going to get his wish and take care of that pesky Mary Jane Watson (cue Quesada twirling a thin swarmy moustache in classic villain style).

Per my usual approach, I’m not writing to take sides in the issue; although, it’s safe to say that the majority of fans are hugely unimpressed with this possible move. And not to recap all the reasons this is kinda . . . well, dumb . . . but it’s worth mentioning that the idea could maybe possibly technically work. But to rob Spidey of his marriage with a plot device as overused and uncreative as the "deal with the devil" (actually Mephisto, a satan-like demon who’s Marvel’s equivalent of the big bad) is probably the cheapest way to accomplish it. Hell, even Straczynski has publically admitted distaste for the story that he’s basically being forced to write!

I’m more interested in the current fan response across bulletin boards, blogs, and other pockets of the net. Let’s make this clear: the dissolution of the Spidey marriage is not set in stone. In fact, this could all be a huge fakeout (one that’s technically working on a financial level; Spidey titles are selling more than ever). Not that the story’s possible trickery is stopping the fans from engaging in their favorite past time: complaining, debating, and dropping threats of "I"m never going to read another Spider-Man comic again!" If you think I’m about to diss this behavior, you would be wrong. As I have written elsewhere, I read this often hyperbolic behavior as a sign of invested interest meeting the discourse possibilities of the web. To dismiss any of this behavior as "too much free time," or "caring too much about something not real," is to miss one of my central running theses: that entertainment is far from simplistic escape or something to ease the mind away from the "real" world. Entertainment and fandom is part and parcel of the "real" world, a place of invested interests where identities are partially formed, sociality is established, and a scattered postmodern world is made sense of. And part of that world is frustration, anger, anxiety, and yes, hyperbole. Why? Because it does matter, it really always has, but the web has finally fostered a place for these conversations to happen beyond the confines of your immediate circle o peeps. The fact that so much text and emotion is being spilled over a story that isn’t even over yet only proves this case to be more true.

Getting back to specifics, it’s fascinating to see the subject of marriage getting so passionately discussed in this manner. It often seems like marriage really only gets discussed in our current popular culture landscape when it’s a bunch of right-wingers trying to preserve its supposed "sanctity" by barring certain people’s rights to it. Marriage fights, breakups, scandals, and affairs get the most play in the news and in fiction. There’s room and need for that representation, and I’d never make the silly argument that the ruins of marriage portrayed in pop culture are the reason for the ruins of marriage in fleshy meat space. Still, it is refreshing to see people debating about the benefits of marriage, the importance of marriage to someone’s character, and how the sanctity of even a fictional one is compromised by hitting some cosmic reset button. And not just any people, but comic fans. Those often stereotyped as overweight, socially inept, fantasy obsessed, mom and dad basement dwelling comic fans. Hell, if we care, there must be something important going on here!

The Anxiety of High Grading

2007-12-17T20:53:00.001-05:00

Turned in grades today and the semester is officially over. I already had a sense of how high this years grades for my First Year Comp class would be, but it really became official as I filled out the paper form (yes, paper form, go Purdue!). The amount of As and Bs were probably higher than I’ve ever given in my years of teaching. The odd thing is how this kind of made me nervous. Not for my grading practices– I think I’m a fair grader with an admitted preference for process over product. Plus, my students do so many multimedia projects, that it’s pretty easy to tell how much time and effort went into each one. No, I was nervous because the grades were so high and I could just picture that call to the office, "Mr. Pepper, have you ever heard of a little thing called grade inflation?"

Now, I don’t think this is actually going to happen, but the fact that the nervousness over giving a class relatively good grades even exists is odd. And it’s not entirely in my own head, for I ran into a few colleagues today who were in similar boats. As far as I know, there’s no official scheme to make sure classes have some predetermined and preferred grade spread. Nobody has ever congratulated me for giving few As, more Bs, and mostly Cs. So where does this anxiety come from? Don’t we, as educators, want our students to succeed and do well? Do we not have faith that our students can rise to the occasion and perform well (is composition just too big and nasty for that to ever happen?). Do we instructors feel it reflects some inner arrogance if we give a lot of good grades, like we’re patting ourselves on the backs if we dare to grade high?

Not even going to attempt the answers. On second thought, I probably shouldn’t even be writing about this. You know, they might be listening . . .

Me.dium Wants to Make Web Browsing Less Lonely

2007-12-16T21:56:00.001-05:00

Ever feel lonely out there surfing the web? On second thought, does anyone use the phrase "surfing the web" anymore? Anyway, until I heard about Me.dium, I’d never really considered this question before. I mean, lonely? Reading blog posts, checking up on Facebook pals, commenting on some fan boards . . . how could anyone be lonely? But then again, these are all traces of people– left behind words and ideas, hardly real time. The closest thing to feeling the presence of someone else on the web may be a text or video chat. However, these still tend to take place in areas of the web built for that specific purpose. When I’m surfing, cruising, or clicking, the time on the web is ultimately pretty lonely.

Me.dium hopes to change that. They’re certainly not the first app to attempt something like this; however, freshly out of beta stage, they are generating quite a bit more buzz than the previous attemptees. From what I can tell, loading the Me.dium software puts a map and chat window in the side of your browser that lets you see who else is currently on that same webpage (if they also have the app installed, of course). If so inclined, you can strike up a chat conversation with them. Me.dium will also make a personalized map of your internet travels and suggest similar pages of interest that you can visit.

It sounds potentially interesting. Something that could be fun with a group of people who are already friends; or who knows, maybe another social tool for meeting and networking. A million questions come to mind too. Foremost, is this really something I want to do? Personally, I feel like I browse with a considerable degree of purpose in mind and this sounds more distracting than anything. And are people really ready to make appointment-based web browsing (they do already pre-plan MMORPG time, so who knows). There also seem to be a slew of privacy and intrusion concerns (though the Me.dium website makes it clear that you can instantly turn the app off and that it doesn’t work on secure sites). And then let’s face it, people go some freaky places on the net. You might be the biggest Japanese tentacle porn fan out there– this doesn’t mean you necessarily want to meet up with other like minded folk.

Based on reading some user reviews, the early adopters seem to think it’s all pretty cool. The biggest complaint seems to be a lack of any genuine crowds to be found; although, this makes sense considering the app lives or dies based on how many people are using it. If something like this was to get huge, it would be a fundamental change to how we approach and think about web browsing. But is it one we want? I’m torn. But I think I’m gonna at least check it out and report back later. Anybody wanna join me on the Avril fan boards?

Uncompromised Girl Geeks? An Intertrash Challenge

2007-12-15T10:59:00.000-05:00

Just finished an excellent article by Sarah Seltzer in the current issue of Bitch called "The (Girl) Geek Stands Alone." Her central thesis is this: current movies such as "Knocked Up," "The 40 Year Old Virgin," and "Superbad," along with television shows like "Beauty and the Geek," "Chuck," and "The Big Bang Theory" are steadily raising the figure of the male geek to the status of new pop cultural darling. It’s never been trendier to possess arcane pop culture knowledge and spin said knowledge into an endless barrage of referential humor, ironic observations, and witty intelligence. However, the fangirl, or female geek equivalent is not getting the same kind of pop culture love (and rarely ever has). Where’s the movie with a gang of female geek friends hanging out, having (as Seltzer writes): "a hilariously ribald discussion on the relative sexual merits of elves and orcs?" The girl geek is still highlighted as robbed of her sexuality (too many examples to pick one), a mere audience to the male humor ("Knocked Up"), participating in art or fandom as an outlet for existential pain instead of genuine love or talent ("She’s All That"), or forced to go it alone based on their apparent complete otherness ("Beauty and the Geek"). The girl geeks are still "waiting for the day when pop culture no longer demands that their nerdiness be redeemed, transformed, or made over– but can, like the dudes’, be what makes them desired" (Seltzer 25).

Let me first say that, as a self-identified geek and fanboy, the representations of male geekdom in "Knocked Up" and "Beauty and the Geek" are in no way how I’d like to see male geeks portrayed either, but Seltzer’s point is still a strong and excellent one. It really does beg the question of why female dorks can’t be presented as sexy (in part for their geeky obsessions) on the pop culture stage. Obviously, the answers are far beyond the scope of this lil’ blog post.

I’m much more interested in some counterpoints, some exceptions to this general rule. I’m soliciting the masses of Intertrash readers (masses . . . yep, that’s how I picture it) to help a brother out. We’re looking for a pop cultural representation of a female geek who possesses sexuality and romantic agency without having to undergo a physical transformation. A female geek who is lauded for her geeky interests, and a respect or appreciation for those interests are a part of her attractiveness, not a hindrance. Give em up. There has to be a few right?

Discussing the Popular: Pop Culture Studies' Dirty Little Problem

2007-12-14T12:32:00.000-05:00

This semester I undertook an epic study of Avril Lavigne. This path resulted in a twenty-six page beast of a paper, hopefully a passing grade in my Culture Studies course, and a whole lot of interesting reactions from friends and colleagues. In fact, telling people about writing a paper on Avril Lavigne ultimately proved more interesting than the actual writing. Here’s what I learned in the process:

Proving part of my thesis correct, everybody and anybody seemed to have an opinion on Ms. Lavigne. Most of the reactions skewed towards the "oh, that punk wannabe nobody." I’m not really using this space to spell out the points of my paper; however, suffice to say that a large part of it is a reading of the punk vs. not punk debate from both sides of the argument, touching on the points of both critics and fans. Essentially, I wouldn’t even try to settle the argument. I don’t really think that’s the point. I’m much more interested in what the arguments suggest about the people doing the debating and exploring the polysemous nature of such slippery (and obviously charged) concepts as "punk" and "authenticity." Feel what you want about Lavigne herself, but any cultural figure capable of sparking such fierce debate and strong opinions (sometimes even in the absence of real background knowledge) seems worth discussing.

Additionally, although it’s fairly common knowledge amongst anyone who knows me that I often write about pop culture and celebrity, my choice of Lavigne oddly threw a lot of people for a loop. A friend of mine who’s a fairly obsessed, pop culture geek herself even said; "I can see worth in writing about almost anything . . . but Avril Lavigne!" This hints at one of the most personally fascinating observations I gleaned from talking about this paper. Certainly not all academics (but certainly a large portion of the ones I know) are quite comfortable with the postmodern dissolution of high and low culture divides. Writing about pop culture seriously is hardly a revolutionary act nowadays. However, it seems as if a new high/low divide has developed within the previously all-low texts of popular culture itself. In other words, although pop culture is fair game for academic pontificating, some parts of popular culture seem (in some people’s minds) more worthy of discussing than others. Take the huge explosion of Buffy the Vampire Slayer studies and the number of professional conferences held in honor of the Whedonverse. I would argue that a pop culture text like Buffy has achieved a "high" status within pop culture studies; or in other words, it has been given the stamp of approval as culturally relevant enough, and perhaps "deep" enough, to validate the existence of studies relating to it.

This seems like a very dangerous path for pop culture studies to traverse. We already have a discipline that actively canonizes and raises the status and worth of texts on a cultural level– it’s called literature studies. I want to see pop studies steer clear of such trappings as canonization and ascribing value for other people. I want to see texts assigned value for almost any other reason than people making arguments for superior quality or inherent worth. Lavigne has sold millions upon millions of albums, and is on the cultural radar screen even of people who’ve only heard an occasional song on the radio and quickly turned the station in disgust. I’m not arguing for worth based on popularity (at least not aesthetic worth); however, I do find analytical worth in the fact that millions of fans have flocked to an artist and found some meaning for her work in their lives. That said artist is an unabashed young feminist with a history of public gender disruption makes the whole situation even more appealing to me (but alas, that argument is the work of my paper itself and I’m temporarily done with that puppy!).

But there’s the rub, huh? Lavigne is popular. Hugely popular. A mass market product that easily opens herself up to criticisms of lowest-common denominator, corporate toolness. But that reading is too easy for me; and ultimately, it’s a reading that doesn’t accomplish much. I think it’s easy to read "pop" culture as standing for "pop" as in frivolous and unimportant. I think most scholars are more than willing to rally against that nonsense. However, we must remember that the "pop" in pop culture is ultimately short for "popular." "Popular" can not be a bad word to us; it can not become the new lowbrow.

Guitar Hero and the Genuine vs Virtual

2007-09-02T08:25:00.001-05:00

The other day, in casual conversation, someone said to me, "Wow, you must really hate the idea of that Guitar Hero game." Now, this person knows I like video games and they know I play guitar, so I was instantly curious what their reasoning was. What they might not have known is how whenever I’m in a store that has a GH setup I gleefully rush over to the podium and rock a song or two (and usually do quite badly).

Their point was that the game is so immensely popular, it’s a shame that the kids, adults, and grannies that play it aren’t spending the time to learn the actual guitar– I suppose their point was they’re substituting a more "genuine" guitar experience with a virtual one. I’ll agree it’s no substitute. The mechanics of playing guitar are nothing like they appear in GH; in fact, a lot of GH might give someone some really bad habits if they tried to transfer those skills over to playing an actual guitar (and this may play into why I’m so horrible at the damn game). But on that point is exactly where I stop agreeing with this person’s assessment.

First, it’s not an either or experience. Just like someone who plays Second Life or the Sims doesn’t have to choose one, and the playing of either game is not exactly expected to produce a transference of life skills. And no matter what the video game may be, I appreciate the genre and form enough to not suggest that anyone would be better off necessarily doing anything else (though I would encourage balance, as I do anything in life). And really, how do we know that the millions of kids who play GH won’t get interested enough to go learn and play an actual guitar? This would be a great research study– it might prove something, though I’m not sure exactly what.

But most importantly, I just can’t buy the slightly snobby idea that playing an actual guitar is a more genuine and worthwhile experience than rocking "Free Bird" on the game at expert level. One of the sweetest things about GH is that feeling you get of pulling off the song. It’s also one of those games that’s great to watch other people play. I saw this rather stereotypically square father in Best Buy tapping his foot, bobbing his head, and gesticulating around with the Guitar Hero controller like he was the second coming of Eddie Van Halen. Dude was loose, enjoying himself, and rocking out. Rocking out in the same way as if he were playing an actual guitar? No, but not everyone is going to take the time and dedication it takes to learn an instrument. If there’s another outlet in which they can experience the joy and thrill of connecting with music on any sort of production level, I’m personally all for it.

As the new media progresses and taken on increasingly new forms, the old hierarchy between "genuine" and "virtual" is increasingly deteriorating and meaning very little.

Cute or Creepy?

2007-08-22T07:08:00.000-05:00

School is back in session, so I’m not really feeling the long, extended and uber-analytical postings that this blog became world famous for over summer (this whole sentence is true except for the "world famous" part). So, expect some shorter quickie posts for awhile.

That said, I’m more than candid about my guilty pleasure for Avril Lavigne. But does that mean I want the new, Avril Lavigne doll under my tree at Christmas? Yikes, that thing is creepy in a "Yes, Virginia, dolls do come alive at night and attempt to kill you" kinda way.

Episodic Narrative and Pace Setting

2007-08-16T08:13:00.000-05:00

An initial purpose of this blog was to post working notes and provide myself a place to brainstorm on various papers and projects. Since the blog was started over the summer, that really hasn’t happened yet. 30 odd posts in, perhaps it’s time to start. One of the two, main paper ideas I’m tossing around in my mind right now involves episodic narrative and how new technologies are changing the way we can watch and experience it. With the rise of DVR, Tivo, online playback, torrents, and especially DVD box sets, those who are willing to wait awhile (or simple miss out on something) can easily experience the season of a television show at their own pace (instead of the week to week wait, plus reruns, of a seven month television season). Years back, the comic book industry increasingly started relying on graphic novel collections that republished the past six or seven issues of a comic book’s arcs into one, digestible package. To expand the idea to music, one could even say that Greatest Hits collections have increasingly become a way for people to experience the growth of an artist’s catalogue without the long, wait time between the original albums’ releases.

For example, I’m a Lost junkie. I can’t imagine being anywhere else but on the couch come Wednesday nights to catch the latest episode. I am simultaneously frustrated and excited by the sometimes agonizingly long wait to the next episode . . . especially after a particularly exciting cliffhanger. But if I were to wait for the DVD boxset (purposefully or by just not getting interested in the show till after the fact), I could set my own pace. One could conceivably take a day and watch the entire season (mind you, it would literally be a day, no sleepy sleep, twenty-three hours of Lost goodness in one dose). This is probably rare, but the point is box sets do allow someone to set their own pace. It certainly wouldn’t be rare for someone to blow through a particularly exciting series in a week or two (I once had a friend who watched seasons 1-6 of Buffy in three weeks . . . now that’s quite a feat . . . especially since he shit talked the show for a long time before having his mind flipped 180 degrees).

Same with comic books. I usually make it to the shop every week. At the most I’ll wait two weeks. If I know the next part of X-men is out there; well, I wanna know what’s happening. There’s no way I’m gonna wait six months and buy the trade reprint. Yet, I will buy graphic novels of series I have missed and blow through them rather quickly, and am usually quite pleased that instead of waiting a whole month, all I need to do is turn the page to experience the next installment.

So my main interest is not to claim which way of experiencing episodic narrative is better. That seems like a silly and impossible pursuit. However, I am interested in to what extent engaging a narrative on its release schedule versus setting the pace yourself changes how we experience the narrative, how we feel about it, and what way it subsequently effects other parts of our lives.

The best place to start with these kinds of things is always questions, so here’s some to start the ball rolling.

1. To what extent do our preconceived notions about a text (or actual info on it), and expectations about our potential interactions with it, play into conscious choice to experience it on our own time vs. release schedule?

2. What kinds of mental or tangible activities (mind speculation or internet postings, conversations, etc.) occur during the wait for a next installment and how do they effect the narrative experience? What is lost by not having this opportunity when one waits?

3. Do the traditional make-ups of narrative (characterization, suspense, rising action, etc.) work differently between the two ways of experiencing them? Can writers themselves make accommodations for the two experiences within the same story?

More to come later. School starts Monday for the love of God!

Spoiler Alert! Your Ability to Play Halo 3 Will Likely be Spoiled

2007-08-15T07:12:00.001-05:00

Imagine if you saw the first two Lord of the Rings movies, but then right before the final part of the trilogy came out, the movie industry jumped to a new format . . . let’s say virtual reality headgear in every movie theater seat (just because it’s early in the morning so I’m feeling grandiose). Traditional theaters don’t disappear, but they ain’t showing the final Rings. Any these headsets cost money, so movie tickets rise to $80 bucks a pop. You dig Frodo, but you don’t dig Frodo that much.

Perhaps it’s not the best analogy in the world, but this is my lead in to the fact that Halo 3 for the Xbox360 is set to release in mere weeks. If you played Halos 1 and 2 on the original Xbox, you need to have ponied up the 500 smackers for an Xbox360 or you simply aren’t gonna play the final chapter. Needless to say, I have not done said ponying; and based on sales figures, a lot of other people haven’t either (certainly not all of the over 7 million people who bought and potentially enjoyed Halo 2 . . . which, yes, ended on a cliffhanger).

The videogame industry has a lot of parallels with other entertainment industries, but on this aspect they stand fairly alone. Say for some reason you didn’t want to make the switch to CDs back in the late 80s. The music industry still threw out cassettes for a long time to ease the pain of your inevitable need to switch (why anyone waited is questionable, is there any delivery device more loathsome than the cassette tape?). The markets are trying to force HD, Blueray, and a number of successors to the DVD right now, but DVDs will certainly be around for a long while. Again, nobody has to worry about not being able to play their favorite Adam Sandler movie for awhile (though, again, why they’d want to watch an Adam Sandler is a matter of intriguing taste). However, if your videogame enjoyment falls on the faultline of a console shift, you may quite easily be up the creek without a paddle. Oh sure, the Playstation 2 is still putting out new games . . . if you wanna play Bratz the movie. But the next generation of games are coming out on super-expensive, wallet killing consoles that few have. Only Nintendo’s Wii could be said to be performing well, and it’s next gen in control scheme more than graphical capability.

Was this next generation of consoles rushed? Perhaps. I’ve seen footage from the new systems, and while it’s all eye candy pretty, nothing has looked like the mind boggling leap consumers are accustomed to at a generational shift. And the 360 has something like a 25% failure rate of people needing to replace their systems. The PS3 is out, but the games library is crap. Any very few people can afford either. Who’s winning here? I’m not sure. Maybe the Master Chief of Halo 3 will win . . . but I won’t be helping in that battle for a long while.

Maybe if Wikipedia Wasn't So Darn Ugly

2007-08-06T08:11:00.000-05:00

Last semester, one of my best and brightest students in English 106 (although they are all unique and special in their own way) almost had a coronary when I actually spoke positively of Wikipedia. She instantly went on the tirade of how unreliable the site was and how anybody in the world can contribute to it, therefore it has zero authenticity. I asked her what made the ol’ traditional encyclopedia so darn reliable, to which she replied; "the authority of the people who write it." Good answer, you know, it’s kinda the answer one has to give in that situation. I asked her who those people were– that often nameless and faceless mass of Britannica folk– and she didn’t seem too bothered by not having an answer.

I didn’t call her out too much (not really my job), and frankly, I was glad to have someone making some kind of very vocal argument in a class that often skewed towards pin-drop silence. But our little exchange perfectly highlighted the core of the Wikipedia argument– the present tension between the knowledge validity of so-called "authorities" and "experts" versus the knowledge validity of collective intelligence and network diligence. One might note the irony of who was taking which position. Aren’t teenagers stereotypically suppose to distrust claims to absolute authority, and as an aging, thirty-year old geezer aren’t I suppose to turn Republican, buy stocks, and pledge allegiance to abstract concepts without ever thinking about them?

The debate about Wikipedia is ongoing and others have spelled out its benefits far more eloquently than I can. I can add that if you need research information of a comic book based variety, there is simply no better source. Maybe I’m a niche academic for actually having the need for comic book research on a regular basis, but I digress.

I do wonder to what extent some people’s problem with Wikipedia comes less from the technicals of its compilation, and more from the fact that its appearance (and the appearance of a lot of wikis) is downright ugly. In other words, while Wikipedia certainly evokes the expert intelligence vs. collective intelligence debate, are we also dealing with the biases of book and print? The good ol’ encyclopedia is pur-ty. It has full glossy photos. It has authority by virtue of its mere weight and presence. It threatens to buckle a bookshelf with its massive officialness. To some extent, professional design teams put as much love and care into the appearance of each edition as the good ol’ "authorities" do writing it. Surface isn’t everything, surface isn’t a substitute for substance, but we’d be fools to think it doesn’t matter (and even bigger fools to think it’s an either/or situation).

Then we have Wikipedia . . . in all it’s very blue/grey glory. The wiki is very much a form to be filled with content; therefore, keeping the interface and look fairly simple and clean makes sense in accomplishing its goal of multiple contributions. But as much time as I’ve spent on Wikipedia, I’ve never once sat there and thought, "Wow, this site sure is pur-ty!" I’m not gonna fault it too much on functionability and navigation. Menus are fairly clear, at least for the basic functions of browsing and reading (although I wish more advanced functions like reading edit histories could be easier). But then we’re faced with the sometimes random-feeling image placement, the poor use of white space, a general feel of overwhelming blockiness, and did I mention the overkill of blue/grey glory? No matter how good the content may be, Wikipedia often looks amateurish. And although I don’t feel "amateurish" is a bad word, it’s a word and feel all too easily turned negative within the confines of the current debate by those inclined to do so.

I’m not asking for Wikipedia to go all art deco. And I’m pretty uninformed on how necessary it is to keep the look fairly standardized to encourage participation. But it does seem the aesthetic side of wikis in general does need some consideration if sites of collective intelligence are going to overcome the number of hurdles standing in the way of legitimacy.

OMG, They Killed Lonelygirl!!! An Extended Postmortem

2007-08-04T08:58:00.000-05:00

Last summer, me and seemingly every other person who spends considerable time on Youtube discovered Lonelygirl15. Sixteen year old Bree started posting vids of herself hanging out in her bedroom with her trusty friend Daniel and one charming purple monkey (don’t ask). Unlike a lot of Youtube teens, Bree was charming, witty, and actually entertaining. Whether "proving science wrong" or ranting against her parent’s strict and mysterious religion, Bree’s videos rocketed her to Youtube fame and record breaking video views.

If we go back to the first video, "Dorkiness Prevails" it’s a quite plain affair– a sixteen year old girl sitting in front of her videocam announcing her dorkiness, the boredom of her town, and making the silly kind of faces that we would expect a sixteen year-old with no master plan to do. In hindsight, it’s a brilliant beginning, for Bree spends half the video’s 1:30 giving props to other Youtuber’s she likes– firmly establishing ethos as someone paying attention to the community and humbly entering it herself. Over the next few videos, no longer than 3-4 minutes a piece, Bree’s popularity began to rise quite quickly, scoring record amount of views with each new post. It’s not hard to see why. Bree was sixteen, very plainly pretty in an approachable and non-threatening way. Large expressive eyes punctuated by perhaps too thick eyebrows that suggested she didn’t have time or need for such frivolous pursuits as plucking. Always dressed nice, but not bland– the all American teenage girl for most intents and purposes– plus unforced wit, humor (not easily found on Youtube) and definitely wise beyond her years. In short, she was so perfectly the picture of a large amount of the target audience’s idea of a girlfriend to date or hang out with, that if she didn’t exist somebody should have made her up.

Which of course, someone did.

The bubble burst if you will in September 12th, when due to fan and Youtube community investigation, Lonelygir15 was revealed to be a scripted web-series, written by Ramesh Flinders and Miles Beckett– struggling screenwriters and filmmakers with a history of trouble getting any project off the ground. Bree was an actress named Jessica Rose, the bedroom was not a sixteen-year-old girls, but the spare room of Flinders himself, and the whole thing was either a brilliant revolution in web entertainment or the biggest betrayal known to the Youtube community.

This reveal came some twenty-five videos into the series, and by this point, the illusion of reality and the comment log function of Youtube had already helped fans score a major coup of participatory narrative construction . . . they just didn’t know they were doing it. Bree’s best friend Daniel is introduced in video #4. We could say only friend, since Bree’s overly-protective parents homeschool her and a mysterious and "non-traditional" and never named religion keep her isolated in the home. Not only does Daniel allow another "character" to play off of in the videos, but Bree also tells us that Daniel actually edits and adds music to all the videos she records. In video#9, we leave the bedroom for the first time and are presented with a Daniel shot and edited video of Bree hiking through the woods. The camera clearly lingers on Bree (in a non-gratuitous way) capturing her smile and eyes, framing her in natural sunlight, and obviously keeping her the focus at all times. Youtube watchers were quick to notice this and flooded that installment with hundreds of comments telling Bree that Daniel clearly has a crush on her. If we are to believe the creators, they claim there were never any real plans to have a romantic tension between Bree and Daniel. But when hundreds of your fans clue in on this and are talking directly to the character (thinking they’re talking to a real person), they would have been fools not to go this direction. Sure enough, the very next video has Bree addressing the comments from the last one, expressing disbelief and shock that the audience would suggest such a thing.

But of course they noticed! Even if the audience at this point largely believed Lonelygirl was just another real-life video blog, a subtle narrative was already being consciously shaped. Fans of various generations knew their Dallas, their Beverly Hills 90210, their My-So Called Life, their Dawson’s Creek, their Laguna Beach . . . the shy, smart lonely girl with the crush on the best friend (or vice versa) is practically archetypal. Even while thinking this was real life unfolding, the audience wanted Bree’s life to go the direction of the teen soaps they’d seen a million times. On one hand, perhaps this is the power of the writer’s subtle building of narrative, that even if unknown to the audience as a constructed narrative, it was picked up on by them anyways. It could also say something about how much we try to build narrative into our lives and the lives of those we encounter.

In many ways, the comment function of Youtube and the way an audience can help a narrative form over time is a variant of what Henry Jenkins talks about in much of his work, most specifically in Convergence Culture. C.C. represent the place where old and new medias collide in new forms that allow interaction and participation in ways not possible before. The linear typographic book meets the 3D visual web. The narrative arc of a movie spans out across a video game, animated shorts, and into an online world– ala the Matrix saga. The linchpins of CC are interactivity and participation, where people not only create their own pop culture and find themselves an audience, but others come into the fold and creatively appropriate the raw materials for their own uses. A open and willing series creator with a highly participatory fan base could easily use a platform like Youtube to co-author narrative. It’s all very postmodern of course, death of the author, knowledge as social construction, and a sense of narrative with no true beginning or end, but an eternal series of social middles.

The only "problem" is, this is not what Youtube is currently thought of as within the construction of its members. As loose as the rules are, the eventual revelation of LG’s inauthenticity angered many people– they felt betrayed, lied to, like they’d been tricked when they were promised sincerity. Many comments post-reveal said that things would have been OK had there been a disclaimer from the start that this was a participatory series. Personally, I think that would have ruined everything. Jenkins also talks about fans trying to spoil Survivor– pooling knowledge to reveal the show’s winner long before the television doles out the answer. But what fascinates me about Lonelygirl is that for a few beautiful months, unlike the situation we know we’re signing on to with a reality tv show, these vlogs could have been real or a total fabrication. Nobody really knew. As fascinating and fun as the Lonelygirl videos were on their own, the more interesting story played out amongst the fans, the haters, those along for the ride, and those who were highly skeptical. Conversation, argument, theory, crude remarks– a huge debate played out over the authenticity of these videos with many people calling out problems with no absolute proof to support them.

After the reveal, I must admit I fell out of the Lonelygirl fold. The series went on, acknowledged as a web show, and apparently went to some strange places. Now, Lonelygirl is dead. Caught by the mysterious order and murdered for her rare blood type (trust me, it all does kinda make sense). A "season two" is promised, and I’m all for this new narrative method. However, things will never be the same. The "is it real or not" debate that initially surrounded the Lonelygirl videos will always be its claim to fame and its biggest accomplishment in an increasingly weird and wonderful web. RIP, Bree.

Of Course, to Claim Something is "No Spin" is to Instantly Put a Spin on It

2007-07-31T20:21:00.001-05:00

As I’ve admitted elsewhere on this blog, I far too often find myself watching Bill O’Reilly just to piss myself off and keep my bullshit detector sharp. Funny then, that I’ve never made any direct post addressing any number of Billo’s jaw dropping hypocrisy, fear mongering, or statements that can only make you say: "Oh, Billo, why do you love the abstract concept of America so much but clearly loathe actual Americans?"

Over the past few days, Bill has taken on the Daily Kos website. The Daily Kos is a liberal political blog, but more specifically (and importantly) it’s a very popular, collaborative blog– meaning posting privileges are open to virtually anyone. With about 600,00 hits a day, 14 to 24 million visits a month (all stats according to wikipedia), it’s an extremely popular blog with a thriving community of sharp individuals participating in some lively, smart, and important political conversation.

Billo thinks it’s a hate site. Well, I should say Billo knows it’s a hate site, in the way only the close minded who never change an opinion or admit wrong can know something. Why? Well, he– wait, his staff– managed to find some posts and comments that . . . are you ready for this . . . contained profanity, insults, and poor taste humor! I know, it’s like the whole world is going to end!

Never mind the incredibly poor logic of branding an entire site as "hateful" by virtue of handpicking a few non-representative samples. What Bill and his minions are missing is the fact that this is an open community where the beauty of the site is that anyone can post! It’s not his website forum, of which he proudly boasts how his staff will instantly remove any comments that are found to be offensive. This is big, beautiful, and sometimes messy democracy at work. Yes, a completely open posting policy means that not every comment or post is going to be completely rational, free of fallacy, or even in good taste. But thank god for that!!! Censorship on the Daily Kos or sites like it would be sanitized, boring, and far from the reality of what actual conversation looks like in this country.

I’m gonna give Billo some credit. I just said I think he’s missing this point. That’s probably not true. My point is way too obvious to be missed. The real factor at work here is he gets it, but it scares the shit out of him. Actual people saying whatever they want? People without fabricated credentials of authority speaking their voices? People showing open discontent, disapproval, and anger for leaders? People posting homemade cartoons and photo manipulations, showing creativity and a willingness to produce something in a culture that up till recently solely wanted us to consume? Yes, horrible, horrible things Mr. O’Reilly. Really has the potential to shake up the ol’ status quo, huh? Sleep tight.

Tammy Faye's Passed on but her Reality Television Legacy Remains

2007-07-22T07:56:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Tammy Faye Messner, the ex-Mrs. Bakker of evangelical shame, died of colon cancer at 65. I’m gonna write about her. Whuddathunkit? Until three years ago, I would not have thought the death of Tammy Faye would be more than a blip on my cultural radar screen. Never convicted of any crimes or wrongdoing, she was best known for being married to some seriously religious men and their hypocritical scandals. Still, that image of her sobbing uncontrollably with rivers of gobbed, black mascara running down her face, is just about as 1980s as you can get without synthesizer music. That alone puts her in the realm of pop culture and worth mentioning. But it’s not why she’s at the top of this blog today.

Dude . . . she was on The Surreal Life!

It’s pretty safe to say that for the younger generations, Tammy’s stint on the trainwreck reality show is her claim to fame (likely the only thing they know her for at all). I would not be surprised to turn on VH1 this morning and find them running a marathon of her season where she shared a house with the likes of Vanilla Ice and Ron Jeremy (and ooooh, the Google hit risk this blog opens itself to by name checking Ron Jeremy . . . twice!). This is all well and good, for appearing on the show is probably the smartest thing she has ever done.

It’s very easy to decry the ills of reality programming and its stranglehold on American television since the late 90s. It’s also very easy to knit-pick the term "reality" television when it’s almost anything but reality. But celebrities, and especially those D-list celebrities that populate The Surreal Life, live such hyper-surreal lives anyway, that ironically, their appearances on reality televison almost do live up to the term. Before The Surreal Life, Tammy was that aforementioned crying mess and walking advertisement for makeup abuse. After? After, she was someone so modest that she slept in her clothes for three nights because she was scared the cameras in her bedroom would air her undressed on national television. After, she was someone who could claim to have never known who Ron Jeremy was (oh lord, there’s reference number three), and their friendship on the show was an oddly touching highlight. After, she became publically known as someone apparently with a huge gay and lesbian fanbase who saw something in her strength and perseverance. In short, a stop in reality television land humanized Tammy Faye in a way that nothing else in our culture would allow. This punchline proved to be a pretty interesting, caring, and genuinely nice person.

Reality television may have "real" people, but they’re still characters to most of us. Shows like MTV’s the Real World even look for archetypal characters from the show’s past to rebirth in each subsequent season (and boy does that show need another "Puck" figure quick). When the show contains regular folk, we meet them on the show for the first time and encounter their narrative from there and from scratch. With celebrities, a character with baggage comes into to fold. Often the whole point of such a show is our narrative expectation based on the character’s past colliding with the narrative framework of the show itself (see currently: Scott Baio is 45 and Single, Rock of Love with Brett Michaels, Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Hogan Knows Best, and a million others). Celeb reality has fast become a genre where out-of-date characters are brought new life by virtue of that classic literary technique: intertextuality. And it’s intertextuality for the sake of itself, narrative for the sake of narrative.

Cause who really gives a damn about the D-list celebrity’s life in principle? Very few, I reckon. But we, I believe, are hardwired for narrative. We thirst and long for it. At the risk of sounding heartless, nobody cared about Tammy Faye before the Surreal Life (or at least very few), just like nobody cared about Christopher Knight before the Surreal Life. But he got to marry a supermodel and actually gets to be known as Christopher Knight now instead of Peter Brady. Because he did anything legitimately interesting? No. Because he entered a narrative that simultaneously referenced and forever altered the narrative he was known for. The narrative itself was basically irrelevant, it’s being told was all that mattered. Not all narrative works this way, but this is certainly a sub-category of it, and worth further thinking.

In the case of Tammy Faye, may she rest in peace, narrative made her something much bigger than a celebrity in the final, three years of her life. It made her a real person. A reality show made her a real person . . . whuddathunkit?

The Insect-Like Nature of Subjectivity

2007-07-21T09:14:00.000-05:00

Since late last semester I’ve been on this rant about culture studies (or at least some popular versions of it) as being useful and full of potential but far too often a banking style method that breeds cynicism and privileged smugness. Now, as I’m getting into the nitty gritty of planning my class for next semester, I’m trying to make sure my rants are reflected in the pedagogy of the newest incarnation of my comp course. I find myself returning to the work of Marshall Alcorn to make sure this happens. Alcorn writes that subjectivity is not "an amoeba eagerly absorbing all the discourse that it encounters. It is more like an insect with a hard exoskeleton that protects its inner structure from penetration, from the hostile invasive facts and discourse that threatens its image of contained and harmonious self-identity." In other words, you don’t get people to reconsider their subjectivities (or better yet, spur them to action) by presenting them with the most logically sound versions of "truth" out there or exposing them to cultural critique that expands on just how much injustice and intolerance exists in the world. I mean, it sounds nice, and I’ve certainly been victim of this teaching approach in my past. But I wonder if it really is that nice or ideal after all.

I’m reminded a bit of Delillo’s novel "White Noise" which asserts that in a postmodern day-to-day existence, humans fill their landscapes, mediascapes, mindscapes, etc. with as many distractions as possible in order to protect themselves and not have to constantly ponder some issues, thoughts, and realities that would seriously bum you out if you could never escape them (the whole act of shopping and the idea of the mall encapsulate this idea well). We can sit in academic circles and talk till our tongues bleed about how interesting and theoretically fascinating the notion of postmodern identity fragmentation may be– doesn’t change how scary as shit that idea is when put into the practice of ordinary life (and it would probably/or does scare the shit out of us too . . . we’re just really good at the illusion of safety provided by the power of pontification). Identity fracture, loss of grand narratives, shooting for dis-census and a politics of difference– yes, yes, and yes– endlessly fascinating and potentially productive. Realistically terrifying.

So we still build identity, we still subscribe to grand narratives like their magazines that we can count on monthly in the mail with familiar content. And no amount of logic, reason, or a proported eye opening experience is going to necessarily change what Alcorn calls "symtomatic beliefs." Not a hero teacher, not so-called knowledge. In fact, it makes perfect sense for someone to be hostile to any attempts to do so.

Despite these critiques of CCS approaches, I still consider myself an instructor in the culture studies vein (were I forced to label myself . . . though I consider it as silly as when people ask what kind of music I like . . . you want a brand category?). Do I see the answer and different route in Alcorn’s ideas of changing desire? The jury is still out. "Desire" is such a tricky word. But I do see the answer in having student’s turn their critical gaze inwards and writing about their own constructions in relation to culture (a pedagogy that does not have to fall into the pitfalls of mamby pamby expressionism just because it deals with writing about the self). I believe in students producing tangible re-articulations and re-imaginations of culture through their own eyes once those constructions have been tackled (note: I did not say resolved or necessarily changed). I think we will always be more insect than amoeba, and this might ultimately be a good thing; and perhaps the role of the composition class is to become comfortable enough and aware enough of this status to play with our fictions instead of dogmatically embracing them.

Congrats Ms New Jersey, You Keep the Crown and Simultaneously Perpetuate Female Stereotypes

2007-07-13T08:22:00.001-05:00

This whole Ms New Jersey "scandal" has finished, and the whole thing has just been ridiculous. In case you missed it, Amy Polumbo (the aforementioned beauty queen) recently received threats of blackmail based on photos that had been taken from her now closed Facebook account. The internet pervs of course went crazy. What kind of scandalous photos would surface considering all the hoopla surrounding the story? Would there be nudity, bondage, horsey-play?

Well, yesterday Polumbo bit the bullet and debuted the pictures herself. And just as she’d been saying all along, there was really nothing to get all worked up about. One photo showed her doing nothing while her obviously charming boyfriend bit her breast. One showed her wearing jeans, lying on her back, and spreading her legs in the air with a very goofy smile on her face. Yet another shows her holding two tiny pumpkins up to her breasts. Scandalous internet pornography this is not.

So I’m applauding the decision to let her keep the crown (though why any woman would want one of these crowns is simply beyond me). And I applaud Polumbo for saying the pics were no big deal when really, hey, they were no big deal. However, I’m still bothered by what Polumbo said about the photos. Her first justification dealt with her being in theater and that theater people simply do stuff like this. Hey, that’s kinda a rhetoric/context related statement, so cool. However, yesterday she felt compelled to admit the pics were not very "ladylike."

Ok, first, why feel the need to make a justification at all? I know she’s dealing with some sort of professional pageant organization (lord, that term makes me chuckle) and to some extent has to play the game . . . but sheesh. But secondly, not "ladylike?" Are you kidding me. I know I shouldn’t expect much from the pageant world, but did she have to go there? Did she have to perpetuate the awful stereotype that there exists some category of behavior that is "unladylike?" This, of course, implies there is some set of behavior that is "ladylike," and historically this has been behavior that is quiet, demure, reserved, unsexual, and basically passive . . . keeps insecure men feeling comfortable, you know? These pics show Polumbo being goofy, having fun, and flaunting sexuality in the most goofy and wink wink manner possible . . . lord, what are people so scared of.

Another interesting aspect of this story is the whole taking of the photos from Facebook. Honestly, as much as I praise web 2.0 (whatever that is exactly) and participatory media, I do wonder if the youngins yet realize how anything they put on the internet will circulate. Polumbo’s stuff was no big deal . . . this is not true of some things these youngins are putting out there. I’d kinda like to think they do know the risks and consequences and just don’t care. I’m not sure though. Certainly, the circulation of personal info on the net should be part of any future, new media literacy instruction.

New 7 Wonders of the World Election Freaks Out Cultural Snobs

2007-07-12T08:33:00.000-05:00

Last January a private Swiss foundation launched a worldwide internet vote to pick a new and improved seven wonders of the world. Over 100 million people voted and last week the list came out with some new additions, such as: the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal, the ancient Mayan city of Chichen Itza, and the statue of Christ overlooking Rio de Janeiro. The official UN body of culture is not pleased (and frankly, who even knew such an organization existed).

Apparently, the UN body of culture takes some issue with the objectives and criteria used to pick these new wonders, claiming they "have a much broader vision." Hmmmm, this seems like some nice politically correct code for really saying that a consensus of average folks’ opinions can not claim what is worthy of cultural praise. And here’s the best quote ever from Christian Manhart of the UNESCO: "the competition has no value because it is not the masses who write history."

Well, at least he’s honest, if not, apparently unafraid to look like an elitist snob of the nth degree. True, Mr. Manhart, it’s not the masses who write history, it’s written by those who have enough cultural capital and social power to make their subjectivities stick. And there’s a long historical tradition of evaluation based on cultural exclusion for purposes of egocentrism and identity. Such thinking gave us the abominable highbrow/lowbrow hierarchy and turned literature into something dead and dissectable. People like Manhart still think that the power to imbue cultural relevance and status must be left in the hands of an elite few. People who like to think there’s some essentialist and ahistorical worth in things, as opposed to social construction of meaning. People who kick puppies into the street . . . ok, maybe not that last one.

Highly successful efforts like the one of this Swiss foundation (what do you call 100 million participators?) show that the tide is ever turning. Everywhere you go on the internet it’s proven that people want to participate. They want to create, evaluate, and democratically decide what cream is going to rise to the top. Old gatekeeper organizations like UNESCO and people of similar mindsets are obviously scared shitless. After all, if they can’t rely on their tastes and opinions to make them feel all superior and cultured, what are they going to do? Taste and evaluation play such a large part in our identities, what’s at stake is partially their very notion of who they are. Yep, I’d be scared too.

Three is the Magic Number

2007-07-11T08:09:00.000-05:00

So yesterday I’m playing God of War on the PS2, right? And, yes, I’m playing it for the first time because I was a loyal X-Boxer, but then it died, and I’ve yet to pony up for a next-generation system (bonus is: all those awesome PS2 games are new to me!). Anyway, one of the cooler parts of the game is that it lets you see things long before you’ll ever use them. It partly tricks you (cause you think you’re suppose to use them right away) but also builds anticipation.

For example, at one point you come across a lever that shoots a fiery projectile at a huge door that you can’t open by hand. Thing is, upon first encounter, shooting the projectile does absolutely nothing to said door. It’s not till many hours later (when you make it back to the room) that you use the lever to actually shoot the projectiles at a giant, Minotaur boss.

But here’s the point. When I first found the level, it made perfect sense within the game’s logic to shoot the projectile to break down the door (having done similar things earlier in the game’s progression). First try . . . nothing . . . the door stood. Second time . . . nothing . . . the door stood. Third try . . . still nothing. I stopped and moved on.

Any longtime gamer would have done the same, and by the same, I mean try at least THREE times before giving up. I guarantee it. And this is when I realized the lasting power of classic design.

In 1985, Nintendo released Super Mario Brothers for its NES system. Getting one is really one of the few Christmas Eve’s I remember (at the ripe age of ten). I got the system, Mario Bros, and Kung-Fu. I went to sleep with pixels dancing in my head. At the end of every level you encounter the evil dragon Bowser (this is news to, like, nobody) and vanquish him by bopping him on the head exactly three times. In SM2 you would proceed to throw jars and other objects at bosses, and if you hit them three times, they would fall. I don’t think there’s been a Mario game that didn’t employ this three-times-and-they’re-dead rule. And countless games have repeated this through the years– enough so that there was no way I wasn’t going to shoot that door in God of War at least three times before moving on.

Someone more new agey than I could speculate about why three. What fascinates me is how one, beloved game has created a pattern that every gamer thinks of twenty-two years later. I would love to do a study of kids (or maybe even adults) just starting to play video games and see what repeating patterns and genre markers they pick up on first. It’s a testimony to the enduring genius of the Mario franchise and a testament to what quality design can do.

Spoiling: Just Mean Jackassery or Brilliant Culture Jamming?

2007-07-08T21:43:00.000-05:00

If you were watching the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating contest this weekend (and really, why wouldn’t you have?), then you may have been spoiled on the pop culture event of the season.

As the contestants were running onto the stage with visions of overstuffing themselves for glory, one of them quickly flashed a sign to the camera that read: "On July 21st, ______________ Dies." I have omitted the name, of course, cause I’m not going to even get myself into that business. But the name, is the identity of a major character who is being widely reported to kick the bucket in the final Harry Potter novel. Not too many people in the world know at this point if the name on that sign is going to be right; however, it matches the information given out on many spoiler websites right now.

Spoiling is an interesting and somewhat complex phenomenon. If there’s a show or series I’m incredibly into, then I avoid spoilers like the plague. I’ve managed to stay unspoiled for every major event on Lost and am glad to have done so. I got spoiled on a major death in the Runaways comic and I’m still pissed off about that. However, I’ve never gotten too firmly on the Potter bus. I’ve seen the movies and I enjoy them, but I’ve never read a word of the novels. So, with my lackluster love for the series, getting spoiled is not a problem and actually kinda fun to see if they’re going to be right (and to taunt my Potter friends with).

Usually one has to go looking for spoilers. However, there are blogs and other sites that will mention spoilery material that you might not be intentionally looking for. Usually, there’s an unspoken ethical responsibility for the author to announce, hide, or set off the spoiler information in some manner. The Nathan’s Hot Dog Contest is a whole nother can of worms. In many ways, it’s the postmodern update of the good ol fashion naked dude running out on the football field. Nobody watching iron-stomached freaks cram meat products into their mouths would expect to have to guard themselves from spoiler information on Harry Potter. Which, of course, is why the guy did it. He took advantage of national broadcast television and delivered a potentially deadly message to Potter fans.

Before thinking more about the event itself, it’s worth mentioning that Harry Potter is an incredibly unique phenomenon in its own right. In a time of niche markets, diverse tastes, and personalized entertainment, Potter is one of those few "mass" appeal offerings out there. There are very few other things that someone would even bother to try and spoil on national television anymore . . . perhaps the upcoming winner of an American Idol, but as its popularity wanes, even that gets increasingly hard to imagine. Potter is huge and popular in ways that just don’t make sense in the new media paradigm. Credit to Henry Jenkins for initially discussing this insight and you can read his extended post about it here.

So, jackassery? Of course, there’s a bit of that here. Why seek to potentially spoil something for people (in an unavoidable manner) that is obviously so important to them. Listen, if I was a Potter fan, I’d be pissed. Good ol fashioned mean-spiritedness writ large on national airwaves. On the most base level, there are certainly and simply people who just love throwing a wrench in things for a laugh. Maybe his buddies dared him twenty bucks or something.

Then there’s a far more interesting option . . . very interesting protest. Though I couldn’t tell you exactly what’s being protested. Maybe the notion of people caring so much about this fictional world and the protester thinking that’s ridiculous. This is possible, but I, of course, could not disagree more with this line of thinking. Maybe it’s something to do with media itself . . . if not, I’m going to make it so.

New media has obviously given people an access to distribution, relevance, and popularity that has never been available. As great as these conditions are, I’d say that a large majority of people still depend on the networks and traditional televison for their news, entertainment, etc (and part of this is definitely issues of access). So maybe, just maybe, this is a warning to those people. A showing of the cracks in the machine if you will. Anyone who spends a considerable amount of time on the net, anyone who frequents sites of news and entertainment, knows to be on the outlook for this type of thing (hey, we don’t always remain safe and unspoiled, but we’re careful). New media is training a generation of media users who seem more savy, more crafty, more suspicious, and less passive. If it’s still relatively hard to get an original message or creation out on the television airways, these aforementioned traits are still a good way to position oneself towards media itself. So, in some small way, a guy successfully sneaking a huge, culture spoiler onto television brings a new media sentiment to the old. At the same time, it sounds another death knoll for passive and heavily-controlled media outlets, exposing them as potentially porous and capable of punishing you for not changing with the times (whether you really deserve to be or not).

Or . . . the dude was just being a jackass.

Btw, I took the quiz . . . I’m a Hufflepuff.

Comic Cover Controversy: A Teacher's Perspective

2007-07-01T19:02:00.000-05:00

I read a lot of blogs in any given day, probably too many, but I alwyas check in daily with When Fangirls Attack– a link list of feminist comic-fan bloggers and other posts related to women and comic books in general. Besides offering fascinating reads into a myriad of topics, I’ve had the pleasure of watching the development of a bonafide community, critique methodology develop over the course of the last few months (and yes, I’m copyrighting "bonafide, community, critique methodology" today). So popular has this method become that it’s already got attention outside of the blogosphere (yay, mainstream media coverage), received criticism itself (of choosing some of its battles poorly), brought out the comment trolls (healthy debate is good but healthy debate is hardly the goal of the troll), and even been parodied (which is always a sure sign that something is working). The initial method is simple: peruse the cover solicitations for Marvel’s and DC’s upcoming titles and find the ones most sexist, offensive, disturbing, or just plain "WTF were they thinking."

Plenty of digital ink has been circulated about the objections and troubling nature of these covers, so I don’t really see myself jumping into that fray. The comments sections and various blogs will give you hours of reading if you’re interested (and well worth it).

The analysis and debate is excellent, straight-up semiotic, culture studies stuff. Which, anyone who knows me should guess, that once I realized this it sent my noggin into a little pontificating (and here’s where I start to approach this as a college composition teacher, for those of you leery of such things). I love all that semiotic shit; look at my classrooms of a few years ago and you’d find a wealth of it. Give the students some potentially "offensive" or "troubling" cultural items and wait for the analytical masterpieces where they tear these items a new one and demonstrate how culturally savvy they can be. Thing is it rarely worked. Oh, I got a handful of really great essays . . . but even then they reeked of the put-the-necessary-amount-of-outrage-on-for-the-teacher’s-benefit-syndrome. It’s simply, often a losing gamble to force people into outrage. Now, this is not to say this is what the various bloggers are doing. Often these are conversations going on in a community of largely like-minded folk, and nobody can seriously fault the blog genre for being a healthy place for someone to vent their frustrations and annoyances. These are important conversations going on (contrary to the trolls who respond with the biggest logical fallacy of them all: why don’t you go get outraged about something important!).

Still, I can’t help but hear the voices of what my students would say were I to bring these comic covers into the classroom (something I can fairly speculate on considering the items I’ve brought in the past). "It’s just a cover . . . lighten up." "They’re just trying to grab attention to get sales." "They’re comic books, of course, they’re unrealistic." Hey, I didn’t say they’d be the most complex, logical, or extended responses . . . if inclined we could tear these responses a new one with all our clever, analytical skills. But, I’m struggling to not do that as a teacher– to not let that be my initial response to their initial responses. These responses come from somewhere, and if we respect our students, there’s a world more benefit in understanding that "somewhere," in lieu of instantly dismissing. Many would disagree with this(even within my profession): they would suggest that as a teacher I should push them towards cultural enlightenment and DAMMIT MAKE THEM SEE how wrong these covers are! But that’s the problem that theorists from Frank Farmer, Marshall Alcorn, Bruce McComiskey, Lester Faigley, and many others have pointed out– these cultural, semiotic approaches often stress a privileged way of knowing (or seeing) that is often hostile and elitist towards the ways folks without a more liberal or intellectual upbringing approach the "texts" woven into the everyday fabric of pop culture. It’s not that this way of analysis is not valuable, but it does assume a you get it/or you don’t mentality that seems to ignore the complex constructions, terministic screens, and protection devices that people view their worlds through.

Back to the comic cover blogging– the one thing I’d like to see more of is dialogue about how both sides have come to hold the opinions they do. Yep, if it hasn’t become clear by now that I’m a good ol’ liberal social constructionist, this should solidify the deal. Whenever I read a well-analyzed piece of outrage, I’m always more curious about the person behind the words. Maybe the blog/comment genre just isn’t conducive to this. No matter how lively and open a blog’s comments section may be, there is always an unequal power distribution in a blog– it is someone’s house, everyone else is ultimately a visitor. And again, since blogs often circulate amongst fairly like-minded people, someone who completely disagrees with a subject is often just passing through and not commenting respectfully with the intention of starting dialogue. The classroom holds an advantage here.

So, instead of trying to force students into outrage, I’m looking for radical disagreement and respect for a multiplicity of views and readings, but disagreements informed by self-analysis of what constructed those views. "Lighten up, it’s just a comic cover," may appear dismissive and unenlightened on the surface . . . but it probably only is if you instantly dismiss it. Something is behind that comment, and maybe it is ignorance (as the hardcore culture studies analyst always assumes), but maybe it’s a whole lot more. If a student where to see nothing wrong with the Heroes for Hire/ "Tentacle Rape" cover, I’d see no long term benefit in telling them they’re wrong and brow-beating them till they write me the completely faked essay where they play the grade game. But I can strive for exposing them to the objections, and the personalities behind those objections, and make them do the analytical work to find the agreements and disagreements that intersect in the juxtaposition of the differing opinions. This is what’s largely missing in the otherwise fascinating comic cover/blog analysis scene (and most college classrooms). Respect for disagreement and probing behind the reasons for those disagreements– a probing that ideally leads somewhere new. Too much assumed ignorance of others and smug superiority will stop dialogue everytime.

Is Postmodern Design Afraid to Be Bad or Uncool? Part One

2007-06-22T21:08:00.000-05:00

Face it, true believers! They just don’t make ‘em like this anymore. Well, accept they do considering this is the cover to Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man #24 which will be released this July in the year 2007. The cover is a decidedly retro throwback to old school comic covers, the likes of which really haven’t been popular for over fifteen years. I first saw it on someone else’s blog, where they commented on what horrible design was employed. Nothing in their post suggested that they were catching the reference (reminding us once again of the postmodern danger implicit in the everything old is new and remixable mentality . . . at least when it comes to the youngins). Come on . . . the still 399 cents joke should have clued them in that something was up!

I suppose the cover style could be viewed as kinda ugly. The cover is certainly busy to put it lightly and lacks a certain measure of balance. The arrows that suggest the reading direction are fairly insulting considering the panel layout suggests a clear order based on cultural, reading norms. The font is inconsistent at times and the techniques for emphasis seem to change with no rhyme or reason (note the difference in "This One’s It," "Hands of Death," and "Dare"). The color schemes in the three scenes contrast in all the wrong ways, and I’m sorry, but the angle and pathos of the Aunt May scene is so over the top that it threatens to rob any real emotion from May’s desperate fight for her life.

But, at the same time, lighten up! (I tell myself, as I often do when talking to myself). The second I saw this baby I couldn’t help but smile and get all nostalgic. Not to be sixteen again, cause lord, I wouldn’t wish that on anybody who’s grown up and put all that behind them; but the cover does perfectly harken back to a time where comics proudly wore their cheesy, escapist fun on their sleeves (or, on their . . . er . . . covers). Comics do take themselves oh-so-deadly seriously nowadays. Marvel is currently on a mission to turn their shared fictional world into a fascist state of superhero registration and training camps. Don’t get me wrong, they got me young, so I still read them, and my thirty-something self probably appreciates the increasing thirst for realism in ways that my kid-self never cared about. But this cover homage does signify a time that is certainly gone, a time where the industry didn’t feel the need to fight tooth and claw for legitimacy and respect– a time where bonehead fun and flagrantly bad design were cool in the name of sheer fantasy.

On a larger note, the change in comic book covers over the past fifteen years does signify something about the larger culture, methinks. Today’s covers tend to focus on the single, powerful image. There is rarely textual accompaniment besides the title. They never speak to the reader in an editorial voice. I think it’s safe to say they strive for sleek cool simplicity. It seems that a lot of design has gone this direction. "Good" design has to be too cool for school. "Good" design must take itself seriously. "Good" design can only not take itself seriously if it’s performing parody or homage (like this Spider-man cover) because then the ability to know what’s cool enough to be worthy of ironic homage becomes cool enough in and of itself to be stronger than any uncoolness involved. How and why has this happened? Stay tuned, true believer! Excelsior!

Britain Bans Manhunt 2 but is the Wii Really Training Killers?

2007-06-20T14:04:00.000-05:00

Rockstar Games (creators of the Grand Theft Auto series) are close to having their latest offering become the first video game ever completely banned in Britain. The title is "Manhunt 2," a lovely little walk in the park that the British Board of Film Classification claims to have an "unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and a sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer." If "Manhunt 1" is any clue, then yes, the game is incredibly violent, sick, twisted, and all those other things that make it sound wicked cool.

Setting aside the censorship issues, what’s much more interesting is something I personally predicted over a year ago to one of my composition classes. This was back when the features of the Nintendo Wii had been announced, but it had yet to be saddled with a name that makes eight-year olds giggle uncontrollably. I predicted that the Wii’s unique control system would soon cause some groups to get very upset. The Wii remote basically allows you to swing a sword, roll a ball, crack a bat, turn a wheel, etc., by actually performing the movement with your arms and hands. Thus, when you perform incredibly complex and violently intricate acts in a game like "Manhunt 2," other systems will ask you to push a series of buttons– the Wii, to some extent, let’s your body actually act out the murderous deeds.

The videogames-train-kids-to-be-killers camp must be kept up at night by the Wii’s capabilities and a game company like Rockstar. I’ve always found the arguments of this camp to be ridiculous and frustrated scapegoating. Yet, I do recall telling my class that the Wii would complicate issues. I’m not ready to switch sides here and decry video game violence carte blanche. But when violent murder on the screen is now matched to the actual body motions in real life . . . it is a bit creepy.

Don't Fight Obama Girl

2007-06-17T12:17:00.000-05:00

Well, here we go. More proof that the upcoming presidential campaign is going to be unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. The most fascinating aspect so far (and lord we’re only at the beginning of this madness) is the role that Youtube and other video-sharing sites is playing in letting the creations of average, everyday people reach considerable audiences. Youtube continues to fascinate me for the very real chance it provides people to circumvent the traditional media outlets that have never been accessible to anyone without a lot of money and an approved message. Society has truly never had such a distribution opportunity before; at least not one that millions of people actually tune in to. So far, two incredibly clever and well-made political advertisements have received national attention. First, there was the anti-Hilary Clinton, Big Brother ad that integrated footage from an old Apple spot. Now we have the genius of "I got a Crush on Obama" by Obama Girl (from the folks at BarelyPolitical.com). If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s certainly worth checking out.

As these "unofficial" campaign advertisements continue to circulate, I’m going to be most interested in seeing how the candidates respond to them. So far, the Obama camp has quickly denied any connection to these ads. This is to be expected as a first reaction, but a savvy candidate should reconsider. Both of these ads are incredibly more creative and rhetorically effective than any official, political ads that get churned out. And as more people make and post these things, a candidate would be silly not to capitalize on the groundswell of support that they represent. Most importantly, an ad like Obama Girl does an amazing job of making a candidate look like an actual human being who is part of people’s real lives. These videos remove Obama from the stale world of politics that has always felt separate and removed from the lives people actually live.

Say what you want about the overtly sexual nature of the Obama Girl video, but the cheeky fun within is certainly more relatable and intriguing than the lame bash-the-other-guy tactics of official campaign ads. The videos also play out not in a place where they are predominantly distractions (i.e. on television when I’m trying to watch Top Chef); rather, they are integrated into the non-linear and self-directed action of web-surfing. As I mentioned in a previous post, the more the world of politics and the way we interact with it begins to reflect the real emotions, practices, and conversations of actual American lives-- well, the more participation we can expect. This is the new democracy, Mr. or Mrs. Next President, get use to it.

To Cindy Sheehan-- Why it Appears that People Care More About American Idol than Iraq & Why You're Mistaken

2007-05-29T17:10:00.000-05:00

"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives."

The quote is from Cindy Sheehan, who officially resigned from her position today as war protester supreme and conservative whipping gal. We all remember Sheehan as the war mother who lost her son in Iraq and demanded to give George Bush her two cents about the war . He never talked to her, of course, but Sheehan went on to become a well known and heard voice of the protest movement . . . until now. She is apparently tired and very disappointed with how she perceives that the Democrats have not pushed hard enough to end the war. And based on the quote above, she is also damning all Americans with interests in pop culture.

I was always quite impressed with Sheehan, but this quote is not the best parting shot. Does the country care more about the next American Idol than how many people are killed in Iraq? Of course not– and to even suggest so just opens her up for some final parting insults from Fox News pundits. However, do more people vote for American Idol than the president? Yep. But the issue here is not one of caring. The issue is one of people feeling like they can participate in ways that are convenient to their lives and that maybe (just maybe) their participation actually matters.

Voting in our electoral system is a pain in the ass. It is, come on. You’ve got to figure out where your polling place is. Most of us need to take time off from work. We need to get to the polls, maybe stand in lines, and then walk away with a very unceremonious sticker. And it all happens on one, solitary day. Do or die. It’s easy to say people are apathetic about government or can’t be bothered to participate; but honestly, the voting system is not one that makes much sense with the way most people in this country live their lives. We multi-task, we do things on the spur of the moment, we download, save, and store things for later. We may not leave our computer screens for hours, but in that time we’ve communicated with masses of people and put very real forces into motion. And even if we do manage to jump through the hoops and go vote. . . is our vote going to actually count?

I’m not saying that being able to vote online is the answer . . . at least, not the entire answer. But if the voting process could more accurately reflect how many people now live . . . if voting could be integrated into our lives and not exist as a once every few years sidetrack . . . then I think we’d be a lot closer to having more participation and interest in the election process. People don’t care more about the next American Idol, but they do respond to the way American Idol creates buzz and offers sensible, integrated participation. Maybe Ryan Seacrest should be hired as a political consultant!

I’m not sure why Sheenan felt the need to go here. I’m sure she is frustrated and severely emotionally drained from her ordeals. But insulting a harmless pasttime of millions is certainly not the way to get the next wave of supporters to take her place.

Second Life Closer to Voice . . . Few Rejoice

2007-05-28T19:21:00.000-05:00

Second Life is moving closer and closer to the debut of integrated voice chat. Depending on who you talk to, this is the greatest thing since Wonder Bread or the biblical Armageddon for this virtual world. I’m not here to give an extended recap of the arguments for and against (a quick Google search should steer you right if you’re interested), but if statistics can be trusted, SL users are overwhelmingly against the development. Segregation of voice-users versus typers, problematic gender roleplay, increased system lag, obnoxious griefing, not to mention total sonic chaos– the cons are pretty loud against a small minority of pro-talkers.

I’m personally not interested in SL voice chat, but Linden Lab seems quite dedicated to its existence, even if the majority of their users seem completely disinterested. This would hardly be the first time they were accused of not listening. Pardon me if I don’t complain endlessly or write epic diatribes that I can only hope some random Linden might actually read. Voice is coming. Plus, I’m not one of those who would ever insist on what Second Life should be or how someone should use it. There’s even a bit of an optimist in me who thinks it won’t be all that bad when voice hits, and there’s an even bigger part of me that sees myself giggling maniacally when the feature tanks big time.

Personally, part of what’s so fascinating about SL is the predominantly textual communication. For everyone and anyone who decries the death of writing in this day and age, I would suggest that with the proliferation of e-mail and text messaging, people are actually writing more than ever. It just might not be the type of writing that the kind of people who make "the death of writing" comments would validate as such. That’s their snobby problem, not mine. There’s something very exciting to me about meeting and getting to know someone solely through the look of their avatar and their typed words. The words they use, the way they integrate actions and thoughts, the way they distinguish a character through word choice and manipulation– it’s a unique communication dynamic in a world where the pen pal is dead and we usually only text and email people we already know. As interested as I am in visual avatar construction, I think the textual communication of SL is one of my favorite parts of the whole shebang.

Only recently did I realize how slightly odd it is that I personally champion the textual element of SL above all else. Everyone working in visual rhetoric knows that we must still sometimes deal with the bias of the textual. The visual is often seen as a lesser form of communication. The visual is seen as an easier in-road to complex subjects for students who are struggling with words. The visual can be seen as essential (or accidental) aesthetics and lacking rhetorical purpose. The field of visual rhetoric is still probably quite a long way off from convincing large publics that visual communication is not lesser, easier, or accidental; rather, it is a complex and challenging rhetorical sphere in its own right. So while my viz rhet side struggles against this bias of the textual, I find myself lamenting how voice chat in SL may potentially cause text to take a hit.

There’s no real contradiction here. Visual rhetoric is primarily concerned with the ways the textual and the visual can combine, intermix, and interact to create new meaning paradigms. Perhaps though this is why the coming voice chat is so personally distressing to me. Second Life (at this point) is a balance of visual and textual communication. Where will voice fit into this? Is oratory about to make a comeback? If the word is already dead, how come so many SL users are worried about it dying?

Joss Whedon Comments on Gender Inequality

2007-05-25T11:40:00.000-05:00

Just in case, you know, I actually have some readers of this blog now or ever :), you really need to go read this. One, because it's important. Two, because it's amazingly eloquent. Three, because it's written by Joss Whedon, and for all the fanboy and fangirl worship that gets heaped on the man (and I'm gonna say deservably), it's great to see that the man himself is also a powerful voice outside of his fictional worlds.

Lost Finale (with spoilers)

2007-05-24T19:49:00.000-05:00

Let the Lost speculations begin. Now that the show has thrown a whopper of a game changing season finale at us, we all have a summer and fall to pontificate on where the show is going to go (thanks to the new airing schedule next season). Like a good dork, I hopped on the TWOP boards immediately following the finale and started checking out the speculations. One of the biggest discussions is over how the series chronology will now operate. Up to now, every episode has contained a flashback of a character. I think it’s pretty clear that now the show will be doing flash-forwards for its remaining three seasons. But this is not to say it’s the future that HAS to happen, cause there will also certainly be some odd space/time warping going on.

Here’s how I think I can prove this is almost certainly true. A few weeks ago, ABC made a big ado about how the show would only air three more seasons. It was also mentioned that the seasons would contain fewer episodes– a number of episodes that could technically fill two normal seasons. But they intentionally made it three. Here’s why. Last night’s episode will act as the perfect mid-point between the first three seasons and the final three. Seasons 1-3 will consist of island-present-time and flashbacks to the regular world. Seasons 4-6 will consist of the regular world which will now be the present (although it will be flash forwards from the perspective of the island) and the island will now be the flashbacks. Follow that! And last night’s episode opened with future-Jack pulling a woman and her child from the wreckage of a burning car. As you will recall, the series’ very first episode also began with Jack pulling people from burning wreckage (of the plane crash itself). Therefore we go three seasons, hit last night’s episode, and the timeline folds in on itself as we work backout for the final three. Perfect mindfuck symmetry. Just my lil' theory, of course.

Can an Avatar Pray?

2007-05-22T21:44:00.000-05:00

Of the many (some incredibly odd) things I’ve found myself doing in Second Life, it’s safe to say that taking part in religious activities has not been one of them. But proving once again that anything and everything is happening in this virtual world, many devout believers are taking to Second Life as an extension of their spiritual faiths. One can find virtual churches, cathedrals, and mosques. One can join religious groups and chat with fellow brethren. On the less traditional side, Wiccans and Druids can even meet and share ideas with like-minded folk.

That people who share a religion can use SL to meet others can hardly be debated. That people can explore other religions through SL by talking to people . . . definitely, I think that would be great; and again, hardly debatable. But can an avatar pray? Can a sermon delivered through a chat log have the similar (or different) effects as one in first life? Are these cases of people extending the aspects of their first lives into their virtual one? Or perhaps a more interesting question, considering the high potential for role play in SL, are there non-religious people who go to SL and have a religious character? And if so, why?

As one of those non-religious people, I’m probably not the best qualified person to answer any of those questions. Sure an avatar can pray in SL, by virtue of clicking on a prayer pose ball. But is the avatar really praying? When people have sex in SL, for all intents and purposes the avatars are having sex, even if the flesh and blood people behind them aren’t. But prayer is more than a pose ball, more than a body positioning.

Check out this quote from Sten Muhammed of Fagersta, Sweden: "I put my avatar in a praying position and I pray at the same time. My prayer in my room is valid and my prayer online is symbolic" (USA Today Online). Interesting idea. Although I’m likely to say that all prayer is symbolic in nature. Still, there’s the idea here that our SL avatars are always in some way highly symbolic representations of ourselves (how we view ourselves or would like to see a part of ourselves). Here’s where this gets interesting. Find me the quote where someone says: "Yeah, when I go have sex with my wife in the bedroom, I make sure to put my avatar in a sexual position at the same time." Or, "Yeah, so I was exercising in my home gym so I decided to go put my avatar in a jumping jack animation." I doubt you’re going to find quotes like these. But the act of simultaneously praying in first life and in avatar form seems quite interesting for exploring aspects of both faith in a digital age and online identity for the faithful. Fascinating, but I’m not going to pretend (at least at this exact moment) that I’m the one to suggest how. Ah, I hear research calling . . .

Doritos X-13D and Network Culture

2007-05-20T21:24:00.000-05:00

So it’s quite clear by now that big business is recognizing participatory culture and seeking to find their own ways to bring customers in and let them participate with various aspects of the brand. The latest attempt comes from good ol’ Doritos and their new X-13D bag. Pictured here, the straight out of a B-movie packaging asks consumers to try this new flavor, identify it, and suggest a name. The most interesting thing here is the fact that we’re being asked to spend money on a product that we have no idea what it will taste like. One could say this is true of any new food product someone buys, but usually you have an idea. Here, nothing. Mystery flavor, money please (although one could argue that you know it’s gonna taste like a Dorito). This fact alone makes the X-13D chip a fairly brilliant marketing ploy.

If the Doritos people have really done their homework in network and participatory theory, then what they’re hoping for is buzz and discussion that will eventually link to sales. First, they’ve got to offer up an intriguing mystery. Hey, this isn’t what is the Lost island, who killed Laura Palmer, or why did they cancel Veronica Mars . . . but it’s got some natural intrigue. To use myself as an example, I didn’t even hesitate to pick up a bag. Curiosity wins again. Then Doritos is banking on people caring enough to publically discuss the mystery. Will this happen? Come on, we live in the age of Twitter, blogs, and Myspace– people will discuss anything! Case in point, here and here. Public discussion should then eventually be flamed by clues. These clues should only by accessible first to people who actually go out and seek them. This has already happened on the chip’s website, where you can play a little game that will eventually reveal flavor clues. From there, these things get really interesting when people go out and discover clues or info that is above and beyond the company sanctioned avenues. All along the way, the point is collective information and opinion sharing to keep the brand in people’s minds and to even oddly form a bit of community among brand loyalists.

Shameless marketing ploy? Sure. Not even all that particularly clever? Sure (surely something like this has been done before). But it is another sign that corporations are increasingly realizing that consumer conversation spreads on the internet like a rumor in a small town high school. No matter how small the mystery or how small the reward, consumers are no longer content to be blocked from a brand's direction or sit in silence about their opinions on matters (no matter how menial those matters may seem).

Btw, my guess is Grilled Cheese & Tomato Soup.

The Illusion of Web 2.0 Security

2007-05-20T18:09:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago a colleague turned me onto vixy, the latest site for downloading and converting those pesky FLV files that sites like Youtube pretend are safe from our grab and own cultural mindset. Before, I was using YoutubeX, which still works but did not take the extra nifty step of converting the file to an AVI. Being able to grab Youtube videos is handy for a million different reasons. How else am I going to forever own some amazing Lush music videos from the early 90s? And when I was working on my Lonelygirl15 paper for the Pop Culture Association, it was so nice to have the downloaded videos easily at my disposal. Most importantly, as a professor who is constantly using pop culture in the classroom, I hate having to rely on links that may go dead. I like to have an AVI of John Cougar’s "Jack and Diane" and Nirvana’s "Smells like Teen Spirit" on hand whenever I need for some good ol’ fashion visual compare and contrast (amazingly different takes on teenage existance).

I suppose sites that don’t offer clear routes to download content have a reason for doing so, and the illusion of secure content display might be a nice lure for people who otherwise wouldn’t make posts. Yet this is all a lil game of pretend that we play on today’s web. Really, is there anything that can’t be grabbed from today’s various Web 2.0 sites? I use to think Flickr had successfully put their content on lockdown. I’d try to download someone’s picture and end up with a nice, blank image called "spaceball." (it’s happened to you, admit it). Then I read that all you had to do was reveal the page’s source code, find the actual URL for the picture that is listed before the URL that has the blank spaceball overlay, and put that actual URL in the browser for a nice savable image. Presto!

This is one of the beautiful things about the net. It works to find ways around problems and flows towards freedom of information and content whenever possible. Copyright laws and the wishes of a content creator are understandable, but both are obviously being reconsidered as more and more media circulates on the net. Copyright is the most grievously out-of-date concept that needs reworking, and creations like the Creative Common License are working to address this anachronism. The wishes of an individual content creator are a bit tricky. Doesn’t a Flickr poster have every right to prevent their images from circulating beyond the website? Maybe they do. But doesn’t the public posting of said images mean they’re taking the risk? But what if they don’t know that people can still get their images with a modicum of work, especially when Flickr presents itself as relatively secure? What if I download someone’s Flickr photo and it never goes beyond my harddrive– I never post it somewhere else or display it without credit? Is there still an ethical issue going on here? Tricky questions.

3 Cheers for an End to Lost!

2007-05-07T17:35:00.000-05:00

ABC has made a move that just might prove big networks can have a brain. Today they announced an end for Lost. Now, I’m a fan of the show; in fact, these days it’s the only appointment TV I have (god I miss Buffy). But the mystery element of the show needs a pay-off and there would be nothing worse than the show becoming unwatchable as it drags on for the sake of ratings and advertising dollars (I’m looking at you X-files). With an end date set, there exists a real chance that Lost can go down as something truly special.

The show will air for three more seasons, sixteen episodes in each, and all three seasons will run without interruption. The end result will be 120 episodes. This plan alone seems unique to me. This season Lost experimented with breaking the season in two– a six episode mini season, followed by a three month break, and sixteen additional episodes without interruption. It wasn’t the worst idea in the world, but many viewers felt the mini season sucked and didn’t end on a spectacular cliffhanger (I don’t fully agree with this). With the new plan, ABC is truly showing a flair for experimentation and fluidity in the presentation of serialized television (hey Fox, take notes . . . and bring back Wonderfalls). Experiments like this are essential if network TV hopes to stay alive in an increasingly fractured media landscape. The move also shows faith in television creators and writers. Recall how disastrous it was for Twin Peaks when Lynch was forced to reveal Laura Palmers’ murderer in the beginning of Season Two. He wanted the murder to remain a permanent mystery throughout the show, and quality definitely went down in season two, leading to cancellation. Hey, what network was that again . . . oh, ABC. Maybe they’ve learned a lesson.

The Mighty Avengers Actually Think!

2007-05-06T13:13:00.000-05:00

I didn’t want to like Marvel’s newest Mighty Avengers series. The cards are seriously stacked against it. First of all, the team emerges out of Marvel’s latest Civil War epic which has effectively turned the Marvel Universe into one big superhero police state. A superhero registration act has passed and every superhero must register and reveal their identity, less they become a criminal to be hunted down and incarcerated. Considering the whole impetus was the Stanford Incident (basically Marvel’s equivalent of 9/11), the whole thing is obviously a big ol political metaphor for Republican fear mongering and Patriot Act-style compromising of freedoms. It’s an interesting idea for a What If style, alternate reality title, but it’s a risky direction for the entire company’s line of comics. We’ll see if there’s a pay off. At the middle of all this is the Mighty Avengers themselves– led by Iron Man who’s kinda like George Bush with more firepower and a drinking problem. The Mighty Avengers serve as the officially, government sanctioned superteam– so the comic may as well be called "Adventures of The Mighty GOP." With his heavily packing and information gathering armor, Iron Man is like George Bush, Big Brother, and Dick Cheney all rolled into one. Meanwhile, those readers freaked out by the whole thing can read The New Avengers title, consisting of superheroes like Spider-Man, Wolverine, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist who are basically bad ass outlaws in this Brave New World. On ideological grounds, you gotta root for these guys.

Before I read the first issue, the Mighty Avengers also looked to have the lamest line-up ever– a virtual who’s who of who cares. Wonder Man? Seriously, folks. Ares? Like Ultron says in the second issue, "I liked Thor better." The Wasp? Not very exciting . . . ohh, she can get real small! Black Widow? Um . . . what’s her power again . . . oh yeah, she has a sniper rifle! How heroic! Over 50 years of Marvel history and this is the best they could do? Was Rocket Racer busy? The one bright spot was Ms. Marvel, who’s always been a fascinating character, made more so now by her new status after the House of M (the mega event directly preceding Civil War). Looking to prove herself after years off the superhero scene, Ms Marvel hires a PR agent and looks to get back in the public eye. Her new solo series is like a superhero comic matched with a behind-the-scenes reality show, and so far it’s working.

Government stools and lame characters (save Ms. Marvel); like I said, I didn’t want to like it. Then why is The Mighty Avengers one of the most enjoyable comics out there right now? I reckon the answer is: Brian Michael Bendis. Bendis is basically da man at Marvel right now: Ultimate Spider-Man, House of M, the New Avengers: the man can write. And I think the biggest key here is the much discussed decision to bring back thought balloons. Yes, kids, thought balloons– those little bumpy clouds around dialogue that designate it as inside a character’s head instead of spoken outloud. Until I started reading about their return, I hadn’t really noticed that they ever went away. But they did. By letting us back into the characters’ inner thoughts, Bendis is taking these third-rate characters (in my opinion) and making them interesting. Listening to thoughts as the new team gels, listening to Ms. Marvel’s self-doubt about her leadership position– these are little touches which are truly making this new title rise above the crop (never above Runaways, but that would be very difficult).

I should probably do a little research and see if Bendis has talked about this decision (or even if it was his decision); hell, I’m now fascinated to find out if there was some master, evil plot to make thought balloons go away in the first place. Taking us directly into the thoughts of characters is one of those rhetorical devices that the comic form can excel at. And considering how other and grand the superhero can seem, all the more reason to take us inside and make them more human for us. Of course, just don’t let Iron Man/George Bush read those thoughts or you’re going straight to prison, bucko!

Second Life Visual Rhetoric Panel

2007-05-05T21:34:00.000-05:00

CCCC proposals were due today, and I’m told our panel proposal got in on time. Like any good conference proposer, I managed to pull an idea out of the ether, cobble together a few hundred words about it, all without the benefit of having any idea what the actual paper will be like. When it comes to Cs, it will be about seven months before we hear any news about acceptance, and then another six months or so before the actual conference. In other words, plenty of time to actually produce something. As long as I'm not writing it on the plane, I figure I'm OK. Cs is also in New Orleans next year, so I figure this means getting accepted is imperative. I haven't been there in over eleven years, and I wasn't even of legal drinking age at the time.

Some friends and I are proposing a Second Life panel this year. We hooked up with Intellagirl (Sarah Robbins) from Ball State University, and we’ve got a panel focusing on visual rhetoric in virtual worlds. Morgan, Karen, Cat, and I had just finished our Second Life machinima video (for introducing people to its educational possibilities), so I guess SL was on the brain. My section is going to discuss making machinima and taking photos as assignment possibilities for Freshman composition classes. All the tools to do so are built into the Second Life interface, and using them in a virtual environment can take a lot of anxiety out of doing the same things in "real" life. I don’t know many Freshman (hell, or any kind of people at all really) who feel comfortable walking up to strangers and asking to take photos or record video. However, Second Life avatars provide a certain level of anonymity and confidence.

Although I only get about eight minutes if we’re accepted (the perils of having a five person panel), I hope I get time to talk about the camera controls in general. In a video game, you might technically have 360 degree camera control, but the plot and needs of progressing through the game will often dictate the best camera angles to use at any given moment. With Second Life there are no such mandates. Since it’s not really a game (no goals, no missions, no end), users are basically left to their own devices in what to do, and that also means it’s entirely up to them where to position the camera. In effect, every second in-world is a rhetorical decision of how to view it. Sure, there’s a default camera view that you can leave alone. But of all the people I’ve actually watched in-person while they played Second Life, every single one of them were constantly moving the camera based on what they needed to do. I figure most regular users are the same.

My theory is that where you choose to position the camera, or how much attention you give to the camera at all, comes to affect many parts of your Second Life experience: how connected you feel to your avatar, how you feel about other avatars, your sense of depth and space, and even the sense of your own avatar’s proximity and personal space. That last one is the oddest. Maybe you wouldn’t think personal space matters in a virtual world. However, when ever someone walks up too close to me, I will eventually back away. Usually I’ll adopt a space not too different from the one I’d be comfortable with in real life. I’ve also noticed that the amount of space between my avatar and others is dependant on how well I know them. Perhaps oddest of all, whenever I’m standing around in a group of avatars, someone will always eventually ask if we’d all like to sit. It’s not like our virtual legs are getting tired! These are fascinating issues to me in their own right, but I wonder how related they are to camera control choices. More later.

What's Wrong with the Term "Comic Book?" Uh . . . Nothing

2007-04-20T15:18:00.000-05:00

The other day in a class I expressed a problem with the term "graphic novel," and quickly found myself very alone. Now mind you, I was not out on a limb because my fellow classmates were arguing that comic books were not art or not a legitimate form of cultural expression. In fact, these were to some extent some fellow comic book geeks that couldn’t understand what my problem with the term was.

I’ll just go ahead and quote Allen Moore on this one, cause my stance starts in a similar place:

"It's a marketing term. I mean, it was one that I never had any sympathy with. The term 'comic' does just as well for me. ... The problem is that 'graphic novel' just came to mean 'expensive comic book' and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics — because 'graphic novels' were getting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk graphic novel, you know?"

Going further, the term "graphic novel" seems like some inferiority problem within the industry itself. There seems to be some need to draw off the cultural capital of the word "novel" to make the comic book form seem more important, weighty, and serious. I say the comic book form already is important, weighty, and serious and doesn’t need to draw anything off the word "novel"– to do so is to perpetuate the image in a large part of the public’s mind that comic books need legitimization because of some intrinsic lack. Someone in my class tried to argue that the word "novel" simply means longer story. Apologies to whomever said this (and I really don’t remember who it was), but this just seems ignorant. The word "novel" has connotations that go far beyond simple designations of length. "Novel" is a word pregnant with cultural associations and constructions of intellectualism and relevance . . . and where ever those go, also go associations of elitism and snobbery. I’m all for more people reading comics and having discussions of them that take the form seriously. The term "graphic novel" strives for that, but it strives for that relevancy by tapping into a word marked by a long history of power and control based in class inequalities. To open comic books up to a larger audience and fight the stereotype of "silly childish escapsism," people interested in doing such a thing could be much more proactive than clamoring for the language rubric of literature. Like? Stay tuned . . .

Myspace Apologism

2007-04-17T20:29:00.000-05:00

Myspace continues to be a fascinating lil’ piece of cultural socialization to me, but I’m growing less interested in what Myspace allows and how people use it (which are fascinating in their own rights) and more interested in how people talk about it in public. Based solely on my own observations, I have recently run into a phenomenon I’m labeling: Myspace Apologism. Yes, this is far from an empirical study; however, as a Freshman composition teacher I at least do encounter a number of eighteen to twenty year olds on a daily basis and have done so for a little over six years (not implying that this demographic are the sole users of Myspace or even necessarily the major demographic . . . sheesh, have I qualified myself enough yet?)

I have yet to discuss Myspace with students (a topic that comes up at least once every semester) and have a single one of them show complete enjoyment or unqualified pleasure in using the website. Most often, they will always hedge their comments with something like this: "Yeah, I’m a bit ashamed to admit it, but I have a myspace page." Or something like: "Yeah, I have one, but really I don’t use it that much . . . really." Perhaps the latter is simply truth for the students I’ve talked to. But the apologies and hedging, the admittance of having one but feeling the need to simultaneously apologize or bash it– this is what truly fascinates me. I’m not a mindreader (at least yet) but I feel fairly safe in assuming that at least some of them are quite devoted to their Myspace pages, log in daily, and participate heavily in the site. However, when it comes to public discussion, this need to apologize or disassociate themselves from said usage keeps popping up again and again.

My only suspicion is that this has something to do with popularity, snobbery, and identity. Indeed, Myspace is very far now from its roots. Your teacher might have a Myspace. Your mom might have a Myspace. People’s dogs have Myspaces. The idea and knowledge of Myspace spread incredibly fast (much to the dismay of poor ol’ Friendster), but with huge audiences comes huge backlash. Myspace is no longer niche enough, or even small enough, for a user to feel like they’re in the know, part of something new and special, or doing something that other publics frown upon or don’t understand.

Now, this is snobbery– the desire to define and construct one’s self, tastes, and activities against a (possibly fabricated or anonymous) group of others whom have tastes that are somehow inferior or unenlightened. But I’ve argued in a variety of places that I don’t think this desire should be necessarily frowned upon. In other words, the desire to define ourselves and the publics we feel part of as being separate or different from other publics is an important part of identity and community formation. A large audience might be desirable for agents, producers, and networks but rarely is for actual consumers. And this is likely what’s happening with Myspace. The user base has simply grown too large for many users to derive any sense of subcultural capital from their participation with it. Standing up in public and praising the benefits of Myspace does not set you off as unique, does not solicit many people to ask for clarification or explanation, and essentially defines you as simply one of a mass.

Mass culture is a fascinating subject in and of itself, along with the popularity inherent in it. John Fiske writes:

"The belief that any one text conveys the same message to all people is a widely held and misleading fallacy. A consequential assumption, that I reject equally firmly, is that people are, in Stuart Hall's phrase, 'cultural dopes'. The people are not a passive, helpless mass incapable of discrimination and thus at the economic, cultural and political mercy of the barons of the industry. Equally I reject the assumption that all that different people and different social groups have in common is baseness, so that art that appeals to many can only do so by appealing to what humans call 'the animal instincts'. The lowest common denominator may be a useful concept in arithmetic, but in the study of popularity its only possible value is to expose the prejudices of those who use it."

Which is to say that popularity gets a bad rap, and is only really a problem if we assume people interpret and use texts all in exactly the same way. However, no matter how much logic one could use to iterate Fiske’s point, there is the corresponding desire (which are often anything but rationale . . . thank god) to reject popularity in the name of identity and standing out. Although I’m using Myspace as an example, these ideas can apply to virtually any cultural entertainment text, and understanding these desires better will be key to studying anything resembling a public rhetoric.

Net Neutrality

2007-04-16T21:21:00.000-05:00

Here's a link to a great video about the history of media as starting open and democratic (the printing press, radio, etc.) and eventually being co-opted by corporate interests and turned into one-way communication. The video discusses forces at work to turn the internet into a similar nightmare. Watch it here.

The Failure of E-Books and Diminished People Watching Capabilities

2007-04-16T20:04:00.000-05:00

I’ve always openly mocked the whole idea of the "e-book," at least in the form it's been presented as so far. The problem has been trying to remake the traditional book in electronic form– complete with pages, margins, linearity, etc. We already have books, so there is really no need to reproduce them exactly on a screen. If anything like an e-book is to exist, it has to embrace the visual and hypertextual possibilities of the digital form. We need to embrace what Richard Lanham calls "the alphabet that speaks," where the visual and the textual, the content and the design, work together to create more complex and participatory texts.

If one doesn’t embrace these possibilities of moving traditional books to a digital form, then the whole thing seems like an exercise in let’s do it because we can, but without formulating any purpose beyond that. And with laptops getting smaller and with portable devices like Sony’s PSP having a web browser, I’m not entirely sure an e-book is something we should shoot for. The days of electronic devices doing only one thing seem increasingly numbered, so any portable device used solely for reading books seems instantly outdated, and the more things such a device could do, the more it seems like we already have fairly established alternatives. Of course, not everyone can afford laptops and PSPs, so if an affordable something could be produced maybe there would be a need.

That said, as Lanham acknowledges, any e-book or digital book will always lack the stuff of printed texts that so many of us enjoy (yet, those people should also acknowledge that such a penchant for the stuff of books is not necessarily widely shared). As much as I love multimedia and digital composing, I like Lanhan, get warm fuzzy feelings when I look at my bookshelves. I went through a teenage phase where I thought I was very cool to have some Kerouac or Salinger peeking up from my coat pocket (and dammit, I was!). No, I don’t think the traditional book form will die, I have too much faith in it (but we should not be slavishly over-devoted to it either). But this element of the book’s physical pleasure (the smells, the ease of portability, etc.) will not likely have an equivalent in any e-book form.

For example, I slightly lament how the rise of laptops in cafes and other meeting places doesn’t allow me to see what people are reading. OK, so there must be a little bit of the voyeur in me. Not that seeing what someone is reading is the best judge of their actual character, but neither are their clothing choices, yet we make judgements about those all the time. “Judgement” isn’t even the right word. I’ve always felt that people watching is an art, a chance to construct creative narratives about people based on the visual cues you have. This may not seem like the deepest or most pressing problem of our age. However, the rise of laptops, ipods, cellphones, and anything that keeps people in their own little sensory bubbles has really diminished the stage of people watching possibility. Hell, I had a girlfriend once who I initially talked to cause she was sitting in a café reading Hemingway. That’s hot! I may be married now, but I wonder: is the latest equivalent people getting excited seeing the apple logo on the back of a potential mate’s laptop?

Why Incorporate Visual Rhetoric?

2007-04-15T21:51:00.000-05:00

Diana George asserts that it’s probably a bad idea to incorporate visual rhetoric into your class if your justification is merely holding student interest or making the class more “fun.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe these are great things to strive for, just not good enough for the sole base of a pedagogy. I think the real issue is how can we create assignments that better reflect the composing processes that students are all ready participating in and simultaneously help them better understand and interpret the arguments that surround their daily lives. I don’t feel the tired ol’ academic essay fits any of these requirements. The world does not come at them in the form of well-wrought and logically-based essays, it comes at them in a wash of visuals, text, emotion, and desire. They don’t sit down to make sense of/or contribute to this interplay by writing an essay, but many of them compose in multimedia environments on a daily basis (have you seen the loving visual rhetoric some teens put into their Myspace pages!).

The issue is: why try to start from scratch? Students are composing all the time and interacting with compositions all the time—just not the kind traditional composition classes have insisted they must value. And I’m not sure why these things—like the traditional essay—are so valued. I don’t know myself, so I certainly have never been able to explain it to them. Contrast this with the music video assignment my students just finished (we watched a sample one in class here a few weeks ago). Over half the class has bragged to me about how long it took to make (8-10 hours on the average), how they simply had to show their parents, or about the comments they’ve been getting about the video on Youtube or their Myspace pages. Six years of teaching and I’ve never heard this kind of feedback from my students. Is this because it was a heavily focused visual-rhetoric assignment? No. I think it’s because they got to make an argument in a form that seems to fit into the world as they know it and makes sense outside the confines of these lil ol university walls.

The Rhetoric of Space Reminds that Literature is Not For You

2007-04-14T21:57:00.000-05:00

So I technically have a Masters degree in literature (the school didn't have a rhetoric program)and have certainly read my share of the "classics." But lately, the only time literature crosses my mind is when I'm trying to wrap my head around the highbrow/lowbrow culture binary (a truly horrible and class-based construction if there ever was one). I enjoy those dusty old books-- my bookshelf buckles under the weight of more Fitzgerald and Hemingway books than one man should be allowed to own. But what I abhor is the cultural mindset that literature (and other "highbrow" arts) is intrinsically better than other cultural texts and lies beyond the reach, understanding, and appreciation of so-called ordinary people. This mindset lingers from, and is a direct result of, a centuries old process of cultural elites manipulating these texts into contexts that construct them in the elite's favor. Even the holiest of holy highbrow culture saints, Mr. Shakespeare himself, was popular culture up to the ninteenth century.

Last week I was in an airport bookstore in Boston and couldn't help but notice the placement of the literature section. The store's check out counter was a big raised off the ground, oppressive affair, truly signifying: you the customer can not come back here. Which is fine. But the lit section was basically located behind this counter, although there was a small walkway to the side of the counter that you could technically use to reach it (the section was also next to the the employee's only door, another sign of restricted access). The placement of the section very much broadcasts: this section is not for you, you're not going to care, we just have to have it. Or, in a closely related reading, the placement suggests that if you have the taste for literatue then you are privilaged and have the cultural capital to take the restricted-looking path.

Keep in mind, I'm not in any way arguing that people need to be reading this literature. Some of it's good, some of it's dreadfully boring, but there's nothing there that inherently needs to be experienced to lead a fullfilled life! But I am arguing that this spacial layout (and a million other cultural factors) do continue to push people into subject positions where literature is the other-- an other that anyone is certainly capable of possibly enjoying. In this day and age, where highbrow/lowbrow distinctions are virtually dead, I'm not even sure whose interests are being served by this.

Welcome to Intertrash

2007-04-14T21:42:00.000-05:00

As I'm wrapping up my first year of Phd study, I figured it was time to "get in the game" and get a blog going. This is not my first blog ever, but it is certainly the first one devoted specifcally to my research interests in an academic context. In one sense, this blog is completely selfish and for me-- a place to store thoughts, information, and writing with the fuzzy hope that it will become useful to me someday. However, if someone else out there finds any of this vaguely interesting, well that's just icing on the cake and gravy on the mash potatoes. More to come later.