And Another Thing!

The following is an account and critique of an event I witnessed this summer:

this man at the dentist's office was going on a mad rant about how children these days lack communication skills and a decent grip on the world. he kept going ON and ON and ON. he placed the blame on television and computers and the internet, just right down the good ol parental list. i just sat there and took it all in. i watched a lot of TV growing up, i have three computers and have managed upwards of 4 websites at any given time. i absolutely adore the label that adults have given us: generation W.H.Y.... isn't that clever?? man, cuz it sounds like Y which relates with respect to generation X... but it's also a question. now adult-types, i'll tell you W.H.Y., and i think it has scarcely to do with TV watching, internet surfing and killing prostitutes and getting your money back after you "patronize" them under the overpass in Grand Theft Auto 3. it's because parents don't put any effort into raising their children. the question W.H.Y. doesn't refer to WHY the kids are the way they are, i think, but more specifically it refers to adults. WHY the hell did they think they should have children when they are so self absorbed in their own lives and careers? WHY did they want their children to be raised almost exclusively in a daycare? WHY are they so hostile to new forms of entertainment? WHY WHY WHY, PARENTS??? That's right, you hatched us, so now we're asking you. Anyway, this gem of human existence started talking about jobs and careers and how kids these days are going to be unprepared for the real world, are total slackers and overall lack people skills. after he brought up this subject, it finally came out that he worked at a TV station.... i finally had to step in and ask him which station he worked for. THE WB. fascinating. perhaps he's of the persuasion that there should be an age requirement for watching TV (the "send the kids to bed before Dawson's Creek" camp)? My mind was having a field day trying to process his logic of simultaneously working at a TV station and blaming it for the corruption of (his) children. then his kid came out from the dentist's room carrying a Sony PSP. that just baffled the shit out of me. was he playing it while they worked on his teeth, or was he carrying on an intelligent and cogent conversation with the dentist during his exam? the latter would have showcased his people-skills and surely would have made his father proud. "mrhff mrarg mrf aaarrrggg," "yes, i do think that the UN should have the final say in international crises." "mrgarrr arrgeeer" "i told you before, i'm already married"

In my previous post, I talked about certain new media being criticized by aficionados of older media. That is, new media being judged in the context of old media. In this post however, I want to comment on the judgment of new media in a social context. We (gen-WHY) are, it seems, good scapegoats for the rest of the nation to dig into sometimes (I don't want to sound like an angsty teen here, because I'm not either of those things). Perhaps we could be viewed as having entered into the world while the gods was asleep at their posts. We're the slacker generation, the fat generation, the computer-addicted generation, the generation that doesn't give a damn, the generation-WHY Eric Chester doesn't have to pan-handle for change on the street corner.

Perhaps the WHY refers to WHY we are the apathetic, chubby techno-geeks we are. Now I hate the idea of saying things that are a sort of catch-all for the people in this generation, but I think it's safe to say that in this nation we are the first group of people who have been immersed in computers, cell phones, the internet, et al. practically from birth. Since these sorts of things have played a large part in our lives, people seem quick to criticize their effects on us. Why is it that we can't do a more thorough search of society for this cause? Why does something have to be wrong with us in the first place? This all reminds me of the nation's response to jazz in the 20th century. Something HAD to be wrong with the kids because they wanted to dance and go out and listen to music. Jazz had to be at fault. It's just too sexually suggestive, and it's going to turn us all into harlots and men of loose morals. I say this in jest, but it really does seem to be an echo of history now. We are defined by Gen-WHY expert Eric Chester as being "those legally old enough to have a job but too young to know that the words 'rap' and 'music' don't belong in the same sentence." Fo' shizzle, daddio.

Okay, so in summary my two questions are: a. WHY do the majority our problems, as a generation, necessarily stem from media? and b. Who said we have a problem in the first place? Is it a requirement?

The word is about, there's something evolving
Whatever may come, the world keeps revolving
They say the next big thing is here
That the revolution's near
But to me it seems quite clear

That it's all just a little bit of history repeating

The newspapers shout a new style is growing
But it don't know if it's coming or going
There is fashion, there is fad
Some is good, some is bad
And the joke is rather sad

That its all just a little bit of history repeating

And I've seen it before
And I'll see it again
Yes I've seen it before

Just little bits of history repeating

Some people don't dance, if they don't know who's singing
Why ask your head, it's your hips that are swinging
Life's for us to enjoy
Woman, man, girl and boy
Feel the pain, feel the joy

And side step the little bits of history repeating

Underprivileged Media

It has taken me forever to formulate this damn thought... For days I walked around with this idea into my head, and yet every time I sat down to my computer I would just stare at the blinking cursor for the longest time with no bloody idea about what it was that I was going to write about. No more, though. This time I pinned that elusive thought down and stapled it to the floor of my brain several times with industrial-strength BOSTON staples. So there, thought.

I have always felt like there is a war that new forms of media have to fight in order to gain acceptance. We've talked about this a little bit in class, but it is something that has been driving me INSANE since before I can remember. It seems that a newer medium is forced to prove itself to be of value to society, and most times this is an uphill struggle. I've been thinking about this specifically with respect to video games and comics. Both media have similarities with both film and written text. My problem in the matter lies in the concept of viewing comics and video games as bastardizations of text. It's a very elitist point of view to take, and probably has something to do with why I became a media studies major. When I was younger, I think it's safe to say that I was somewhat looked down upon by my older sister for being so invested into video games. At that point she had spent the majority of her literate years sequestered away from the world and entwined in her books. She would often criticize me (sometimes quite harshly) for playing video games, and tell me how they could never compare to a good book. I've still been waiting for her to be proven right. I say this because I think it is ridiculous to try and judge one of these media on the basis of the other. I could never genuinely say that I got more satisfaction out of a video game than I did a novel, and I could never say the converse. It seems to be quite a similar case for comics (although my sister didn't give me quite as much hell, since I did have paper in my hands). Does the fact that they have pictures in them make them too proletariat for the average novel connoisseur? Hrmmm....

Another obnoxious thing I find is when people go to see a movie which was based off of a novel/video game/comic/TV show/etc. and then walk out of the theatre saying things like "OH MY GOD, THE NOVEL WAS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER." And it always has to be a movie rendition that sparks this thought process. It just seems absurd to draw direct correlations between subjects on two very different media formats. I mean, sure there are probably parts cut out that people liked or whatnot, but the material itself undergoes an immense transfiguration. If you have a little freetime, reduce a 500 page novel down into a 120 page screenplay. Then if you have a bit of extra time to spare, turn that into a feature-length film. Also bear in mind that during all of this the material is being parsed through multiple brains, so the result is not the vision of a single mind's eye. So you liked the book. Good. You didn't like the book. Good. You liked the movie. Good. You didn't like the movie. Good. But it just doesn't make sense in my mind as to why anyone should feel the need to say that one was better than the other.

$5.00 says that nobody walked out of the theatre after seeing Brazil in 1985 and said "Well, it was a nice try, but the song is far better." Put that in your pipe.


Incidentally, I love my sister.

No Pane, No Gain

I'll be honest and say that I love comics. I consider myself to be pretty well exposed to the various types/genres/eras/whatever you want to call them. They've never played a huge part in my life, but I love reading them all the same.

The thing I wanted to focus on the most in class today was the idea of the comic itself returning. We talked a lot about what the implications are of comics proliferating throughout the online community, but we only talked briefly about the future of comics as still being something that is printed on paper and read. It is my personal belief that comics is on the verge of being revitalized. I think McCloud was a bit too dismissive of Miller's Sin City, and he almost seemed to be taking an elitist stance against it. He seemed to view it as something base and unintelligent, but I don't really feel like it was his place to judge it as such. After all, the primary assumption that comics has fought against is the notion that they are simple sources of entertainment for uneducated people who can't understand and appreciate the finer points in life. It's the same battle that video games has been fighting. In order to win this battle, you need to refrain from waging it against your compatriots.

This being said, I am curious to know what McCloud's take is on the film adaptation of Sin City. In my personal experience, it has come the closest out of any film I know of emulating its comic predecessor faithfully. Marvel has cranked out some movies that have been entertaining, but have stuck very closely to the Hollywood mould. I have seen the Batman movies, the Superman movies, the Daredevil movie, but Sin City was the first in which I really wanted to go back and read the comic (yes, I saw the movie before reading the comic). Moreover, I know that I am not the only one. Several people I know have done the same thing. No matter what your personal convictions are towards the series, you cannot deny that this is a positive thing for the industry.

I also just want to touch briefly on the idea of comics being a medium targeted to the uneducated or blue collar individuals. Some really influential artists have been involved in comics. McCloud mentions it, but Neil Gaiman wrote the stories for The Sandman series. Yoshitaka Amano, a famous Japanese artist, has done the illustrations for many graphic novels (actually, I just recently found out that he did the illustrations for Gaiman's graphic novel The Sandman: The Dream Hunters). In short, comics is a serious and legitimate medium. Artists from other media know this and are exploring the possibilities that it provides.

So yeah, I like comics. After finding out about that Amano/Gaiman collaboration, I think I'll be hitting the comic book stores pretty soon... I just wish I had found out about it sooner.

By the by: THE SANDMAN: The Dream Hunters was nominated for Hugo Award and won the 2000 Eisner Award

Source Tags

This is an absolutely amazing concept. I really like the idea of crossing (possibly breaking down) a boundary between the online world and that of the unplugged, un-wired, un-wireless and Bluetoothless. I am having trouble deciding for myself whether this sort of thing falls into the category of hypertext, or if it is simply too broad. While it seems to fall into the idea of having a sort of structured and linear-esque essence to it (similar to hypertext), and yet it is very ergodic in nature in that you actually have to hunt down what it is that these tagged pointers refer to.

I've actually known about this site for awhile, but it was only from our recent discussions that I remembered it. Since I used to tag in years past, I encourage you all to go out and try it... I can say that, right? Just don't bomb private property, that's not cool (and not as many people will see your link).

The Loan Gunman

Hooo...

So my roommate has a pretty slow laptop. I, on the other hand, shelled out a fortune this summer to get my computer burning fast so I could do video manipulation, 3d graphic design, etc... One of the [fairly desirable] side effects is that my computer can run video games REALLY well. Perhaps you can see where this is going. My roomie uses my computer to play games that his can't handle. That's really no problem by me... unless I have things to do (post?).

Now, this may sound like I'm trying to come up with an excuse for why I haven't posted (the main reason was that this was week 1 of 2 from hell), but I'm actually taking this in another direction.

Watching my roommate deftly maneuver through corridors while gunning down anything in his way got me to thinking about media.

Sidebar: I know I've talked about video games quite a bit, but I think it's reasonable to do so in a class that studies new media. I've played them my entire life, but it's only now that I have started to think about them on a deeper level.

I'm starting to look at video games not as a specific medium, but rather as a category for many different media. I suppose that various video games could be classified in multiple ways depending on different criteria, but as I was watching I started thinking of the effect of perspective in relation to games. There are some games which are in first-person (Half Life, Doom). There are also quite a fair deal of 3rd person games where you watch your character interact with the environment (Tomb Raider, Max Payne). There are games in which you assume a sort of god-like roll (Sim City). How do these differences draw the player into the game? It's quite common for my roommate to say things like "how did he hit me?" He talks as if the character he commands is an extension of himself.

I'm still trying to figure out what all of this means, but this is something that I find really interesting. Anyone have thoughts on the subject?

The Right Typing on a Typerwriter

Everything in the world has been working against me for the past week, but I finally am getting out my post (more to come for this week, too).

I found the Gitelman readings to be quite engaging. Perhaps a reason for this is her seemingly casual and obtuse references to the paranormal in relation to new technology. Specifically, she talks about seances and typewriters. It was really this more than anything that stuck with me. I began to think about remote viewing. If you don't know what that is, it's basically the concept of using clairvoiance to see the goings on at another perhaps inaccessible location. I was fishing for a tie to the readings, but I think that for me the tie came during our class discussion.

We talked about the idea of obsolete technology. Why is it that some things are destined to fail, regardless of their merits, while other technologies succeed? Disbelief aside, imagine if remote viewing was proven to be a legitimate "technology." It seems to me as if there would be initial shock that something like that was possible, but after a while it would tone down into a common commodity. This is not unlike the life of the typewriter. It was initially a rather astounding technology, but it eventually diminished into a rather unremarkable staple of modern society (well... even less so with the advent of the word processor).

So yeah.