Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Communities
The brash and brazen -- but nonetheless helpful -- Suzan has found a very good article for us to read.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
We've done it again!
We have upset somebody, although I am, frankly, surprised this time, inasmuch as I spent the last ten minutes of class raving (semi-incoherently) about how great this was.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Lucy in the Sky
This person could easily be a big star in blogging, IMHO. I'm going to keep my eye on her. Thanks, Cosmo. Boy, livejournal never looked so bangin', huh?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Kind of Blog That Pisses Scott Off...Pisses Off Scott?
I was looking at a lot of art in New York City this weekend ... at MoMa and in the galleries around Chelsea too. And it made me think about blogs-as-art. And whether bloggers are just kind of opting-out of artistry. From the Steve Himmer essay I linked below:
The latitude allowed a weblogger, over time, to unfold the many aspects of his or her life and personality, and to do so in the same space in which they offer commentary on politics and culture, is a luxury not afforded to journalists or even novelists: discrete, commodifiable work requires a purpose, a point, or at the very least a markable focus. This is not to say, however, that the self presented on a weblog is a “complete” or even an accurate one: just as in journalism, memoir, or fiction, decisions are made about what to include and what to exclude. The weblogger, in that sense, can be read as fictional, as a character, in precisely the same ways that Andy Rooney or James Joyce can be—furthering the collapse between factual and fictional, public and private, and distinct genres in general. The play of time in the weblog allows for the presence of what Walter Benjamin calls an “aura,” the work’s “presence in time and space, its unique existence in the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence” (p. 222). The weblog—rather, the weblog as it was in the moment before the most recent addition or change—cannot be reproduced: it is inextricably bound with its moment of production, and that moment is lost when a new moment occurs in its place.
But that got me to thinking about a potentially Scott-off-pissing blog about which last year's class obsessed for a while. We went back to its beginning and thumbed around in it and could not decide how much of it was real. Since then, I see she kept it going, though a title change that happened right here. And here it is today. But she seems to epitomize some of the issues discussed in the essay, which continues:
That the weblog is always in process, never completed, can be read as both its greatest strength and, in another way, its weakness as a form. Burger (1995) argues that the project of the avant-garde is to collapse the distinction between the art object and the process of its creation, that art (and the creation of art) should be integrated into the practice of everyday life. “What is negated,” Burger writes,
is not an earlier form of art (a style) but art as an institution that is unassociated with the life praxis of men. When the avant-gardistes demand that art become practical once again, they do not mean that the contents of works of art should be socially significant. The demand is not raised at the level of the contents of individual works. Rather, it directs itself to the way art functions in society, a process that does as much to determine the effects that works have as does the particular content. (p. 49)
The latitude allowed a weblogger, over time, to unfold the many aspects of his or her life and personality, and to do so in the same space in which they offer commentary on politics and culture, is a luxury not afforded to journalists or even novelists: discrete, commodifiable work requires a purpose, a point, or at the very least a markable focus. This is not to say, however, that the self presented on a weblog is a “complete” or even an accurate one: just as in journalism, memoir, or fiction, decisions are made about what to include and what to exclude. The weblogger, in that sense, can be read as fictional, as a character, in precisely the same ways that Andy Rooney or James Joyce can be—furthering the collapse between factual and fictional, public and private, and distinct genres in general. The play of time in the weblog allows for the presence of what Walter Benjamin calls an “aura,” the work’s “presence in time and space, its unique existence in the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence” (p. 222). The weblog—rather, the weblog as it was in the moment before the most recent addition or change—cannot be reproduced: it is inextricably bound with its moment of production, and that moment is lost when a new moment occurs in its place.
But that got me to thinking about a potentially Scott-off-pissing blog about which last year's class obsessed for a while. We went back to its beginning and thumbed around in it and could not decide how much of it was real. Since then, I see she kept it going, though a title change that happened right here. And here it is today. But she seems to epitomize some of the issues discussed in the essay, which continues:
That the weblog is always in process, never completed, can be read as both its greatest strength and, in another way, its weakness as a form. Burger (1995) argues that the project of the avant-garde is to collapse the distinction between the art object and the process of its creation, that art (and the creation of art) should be integrated into the practice of everyday life. “What is negated,” Burger writes,
is not an earlier form of art (a style) but art as an institution that is unassociated with the life praxis of men. When the avant-gardistes demand that art become practical once again, they do not mean that the contents of works of art should be socially significant. The demand is not raised at the level of the contents of individual works. Rather, it directs itself to the way art functions in society, a process that does as much to determine the effects that works have as does the particular content. (p. 49)
Alchemy
As I read Caitlin's "friend," I struggle with the question of what he is doing. Creating blogerature or creating relationships? Make sure you check out how he handles comment threads. And then also read this.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Out of the mouths of sloths ...
Ignoring the part about my car, read Caitlin's musing about wordsmithery, and check out the blog she likes.
Blogging style
On the subject of rhetoric and style, read this post by Jill Walker, who appears to be teaching blogs a lot better than I am, in Norway. You might want to poke around her blog, in general. Oh. Happy Hopetaking. A new holiday I am promoting, mainly internally.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Also you must read ...
This study of how people handle their templates seems to have been done in 2003. I wonder if tendencies have changed more recently.
The Visual and Rhetorical Elements of Blogging Style
Jim has been wondering about the visual elements of blogging. Let's start with this lengthy and remarkable essay about that.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Poetry?
I kind of like this: As a literate, civil, rational spokesman for modernity (though in the guise of an ancient sage), Publius cannot move some loyalties. He cannot counter or satisfy some human longings. It would be idle to wonder how a full-blown, spiritually satisfying constitution might have emerged in the 1780s, harmonized by an American Milton. The nature of the American experience was to begin anew, try an experiment, cast off crown and pulpit by calling upon modern newspaper prose to justify a new departure. The poetry of such a changed world would have to emerge, […] through experience, time, and feeling. But the first large step is bare law; devoid of the grace of imagery, softened only by the long deliberation and free discussion, and opening a dangerous discontinuity between old authorities and new. [ix]
It may be that the poetry that we were to wait for was right before our eyes in Publius and that we continue to provide for its emergence as we remain open to the richness of the pseudonym.
It may be that the poetry that we were to wait for was right before our eyes in Publius and that we continue to provide for its emergence as we remain open to the richness of the pseudonym.
Other cool things you blogged
jim Blogging has interested me for two reasons: it allows access to new, broad, unique sources of information; and it creates a space to explore information and to express my thoughts about the information. I now have two blogs and plan on creating another in a few months. This blog is for class, but it’s also to document my thoughts and feelings. My second blog is to document my class, to connect the text to other ideas, and to explore or express my interpretation of the text. The blogs help my feeder instinct.
jim 2 The article in today’s Courant only reinforces my opinion about him. I can relate to his information driven style and the way he weaves it into a story. The interesting stuff is, many times, in the small details of history. I’m a history buff and always am struck but how such huge events turn on some small detail – a captured missive, animosity between two people, illness, egos. I have to wonder, though, would Chris have been able to achieve his current status without blogging. I would so not. I think he is a creature of this media and his knowledge had given him a unique edge, which, by the way, benefits all of us since we need people like him and his colleagues to open new doors to old rooms.
rene: I obviously have more experience being and information seeker. Becoming a person who spreads information is a little disconcerting for me, since I tend to seek information that interest me and what I would share with others would be totally subjective and biased. Reminds me of something…Blogs.Going forward, I think that I will evolve into an online advocate for a cause. I would like to blog and find sites that are concerned with the public good of society. I surmise that I would be more inclined to spread information about a particular cause/interest if I am passionate about the topic.
scott:
First, on the fact that we refer to them as bloggers - we had a hard time adjusting to their "real" names - this is purely speculative and theoretical, but where DO they exist? For us, at least, their existence was purely as information, as an electronic media. They were not people, but they were their blogs. Look at Alden, for example: With a Longfellow Beard like he had just come out of a solitary time in the woods (or the wilderness of the electronic world), and wearing a shirt on which was stitched the word "Blogger" where a nametag would normally go. When he first visited class, I wasn't there, but I read about how he himself was like a blog...what came first, the blog or the brain?Why were we so freaked out when Jason Scott showed up? Because we, foolishly could not reconcile the hyperreal with the real.Alden, I'm sure you and other people who were in our class will read this - and I don't intend to criticize you or your fellow bloggers, marginalize you, or discredit the things you do do, working for the Dean campaign, or in the case of Spazeboy, following politicians around with cameras and being a full-time student. These are just musings, more about our perceptions of existence, not existence itself.
jim 2 The article in today’s Courant only reinforces my opinion about him. I can relate to his information driven style and the way he weaves it into a story. The interesting stuff is, many times, in the small details of history. I’m a history buff and always am struck but how such huge events turn on some small detail – a captured missive, animosity between two people, illness, egos. I have to wonder, though, would Chris have been able to achieve his current status without blogging. I would so not. I think he is a creature of this media and his knowledge had given him a unique edge, which, by the way, benefits all of us since we need people like him and his colleagues to open new doors to old rooms.
rene: I obviously have more experience being and information seeker. Becoming a person who spreads information is a little disconcerting for me, since I tend to seek information that interest me and what I would share with others would be totally subjective and biased. Reminds me of something…Blogs.Going forward, I think that I will evolve into an online advocate for a cause. I would like to blog and find sites that are concerned with the public good of society. I surmise that I would be more inclined to spread information about a particular cause/interest if I am passionate about the topic.
scott:
First, on the fact that we refer to them as bloggers - we had a hard time adjusting to their "real" names - this is purely speculative and theoretical, but where DO they exist? For us, at least, their existence was purely as information, as an electronic media. They were not people, but they were their blogs. Look at Alden, for example: With a Longfellow Beard like he had just come out of a solitary time in the woods (or the wilderness of the electronic world), and wearing a shirt on which was stitched the word "Blogger" where a nametag would normally go. When he first visited class, I wasn't there, but I read about how he himself was like a blog...what came first, the blog or the brain?Why were we so freaked out when Jason Scott showed up? Because we, foolishly could not reconcile the hyperreal with the real.Alden, I'm sure you and other people who were in our class will read this - and I don't intend to criticize you or your fellow bloggers, marginalize you, or discredit the things you do do, working for the Dean campaign, or in the case of Spazeboy, following politicians around with cameras and being a full-time student. These are just musings, more about our perceptions of existence, not existence itself.
Chrs wonders
How many bloggers really get fired.
It does demonstrate some of the fear surrounding a new medium. It feels to me that a few memes were perpetuated about blogs early on. Remember the reports of people getting fired for writing about their jobs online? Probably true. Possibly overreactive by the employers and more than likely a less-than-smart move on the part of the employee. But these couple of cases caused a near panic in the uninitiated. "What's this blog? I don't even know what a blog is." I feel we get panicky about our privacy in this country. So, it naturally follows that in a soul-baring medium like the online journal, this is a hot topic.
It does demonstrate some of the fear surrounding a new medium. It feels to me that a few memes were perpetuated about blogs early on. Remember the reports of people getting fired for writing about their jobs online? Probably true. Possibly overreactive by the employers and more than likely a less-than-smart move on the part of the employee. But these couple of cases caused a near panic in the uninitiated. "What's this blog? I don't even know what a blog is." I feel we get panicky about our privacy in this country. So, it naturally follows that in a soul-baring medium like the online journal, this is a hot topic.
Nurse Knott on Dr. Crazy
Ooooooh. Maybe we will connect it all up in class, but I like the way stuff is sloshing togther here. Scott's musings on the real and hyperreal, and Brenda's exchange with Aldon about being a McMeme and then Jennie -- make sure you read the final paragraph.
Joe SqPnts: Blogging anonymity may provide a buffer to some of that, but as some of us found out with Jason, it's not a License to Kill with words. The persona, I believe, develops as we become more public with our writing, and we are able to judge upon the favorable and objectionable reactions to the things.
Sara on personae -- in a way that reinforces Caitlin's argument about the Romantic self: They all hint at certain qualities of the blogger, either real or desired. So I think that pseudonyms, though commonly used to maintain anonymity, are chosen as a sort of mark or brand. A "hey, this is me" kind of thing. Of course, there are probably many instances where this is not true, but I think that because there's always some desire to personalize what you write and what you create, to mark it in some unique way, to own it or at least attach yourself to it, pseudonyms represent the blogger, if not identify them.
Jill notices the way CGG manages her persona: First of all, I want to remark about how impressed I am with how tight-lipped CGG is about the specifics of her personal life. She certainly speaks about her personal life (congrats on the wedding!) but without any proper names of anyone or anything. Even her fiance is known only as "SO," and it wasn't until I backtracked for a month or two that I noticed that her significant other was given a masculine pronoun. And yet, her entries are very free-flowing and natural. I don't think I could do that- my entries would probably look like a letter revised by the military, with REDACTED awkwardly replacing half of the good stuff. So sorry friends- if you're in my life, you're probably in my LJ.
Hey did we know Brenda was really funny?
I would think your blogger name would get pretty tiring after awhile (it sounded good after three glasses of wine but what does “bitchkitty” actually mean?). Like the Halloween costume with the plastic thread that starts to itch, I’d think you’d be ready to take the thing off and get comfortable in sweats.
Joe SqPnts: Blogging anonymity may provide a buffer to some of that, but as some of us found out with Jason, it's not a License to Kill with words. The persona, I believe, develops as we become more public with our writing, and we are able to judge upon the favorable and objectionable reactions to the things.
Sara on personae -- in a way that reinforces Caitlin's argument about the Romantic self: They all hint at certain qualities of the blogger, either real or desired. So I think that pseudonyms, though commonly used to maintain anonymity, are chosen as a sort of mark or brand. A "hey, this is me" kind of thing. Of course, there are probably many instances where this is not true, but I think that because there's always some desire to personalize what you write and what you create, to mark it in some unique way, to own it or at least attach yourself to it, pseudonyms represent the blogger, if not identify them.
Jill notices the way CGG manages her persona: First of all, I want to remark about how impressed I am with how tight-lipped CGG is about the specifics of her personal life. She certainly speaks about her personal life (congrats on the wedding!) but without any proper names of anyone or anything. Even her fiance is known only as "SO," and it wasn't until I backtracked for a month or two that I noticed that her significant other was given a masculine pronoun. And yet, her entries are very free-flowing and natural. I don't think I could do that- my entries would probably look like a letter revised by the military, with REDACTED awkwardly replacing half of the good stuff. So sorry friends- if you're in my life, you're probably in my LJ.
Hey did we know Brenda was really funny?
I would think your blogger name would get pretty tiring after awhile (it sounded good after three glasses of wine but what does “bitchkitty” actually mean?). Like the Halloween costume with the plastic thread that starts to itch, I’d think you’d be ready to take the thing off and get comfortable in sweats.
The Scarlet Pimpernel Phenomenon
I'm pretty sure 2/3 of the women in this class have crushes on SpazeBoy.
Dr. Crazy Speaks!!
As for my situation, some background: First of all, this isn't the first time I've outed myself! It was the first time I was outed by another blogger (though that was innocent, actually), but I was threatened by someone with potentially being outed last year. The threat of being outed definitely changed my voice as a blogger.
My first version of my blog (at another address) tended to be a bit harsher, and when somebody threatened to out me, I really did a lot of soul-searching about whether that was a persona I was comfortable with revealing to the outside world, especially as I talk about issues related to my profession. That was when I moved over to reassigned time, and I am very comfortable with my persona in that space.
My reasons for keeping the pseudonym are basically that I do feel a greater comfort level with posting spontaneously, and that is important, I think, to the genre. If I wanted to write a series of essays, or if I wanted to write only about my academic field of specialty, I don't think that I'd choose to do so on a blog mainly because I'd want to publish that material in a more traditional form. Blogging works for me precisely because I keep it separate from my professional writing life, even though I touch on issues related to my profession in posts and even though I do feel that blogging is central to keeping me engaged in my profession.
I suppose a good analogy to make would be that the difference between writing for publication and blogging is much like the difference between participating in classroom formal classroom discussion and chatting with friends about something that you're thinking about related to a class that you're taking. In the conversation with friends, you're more free to try out ideas without worrying about what effect they'll have on your grade; in blogging, you're more free to try out ideas without worrying what effect they'll have on your prospects for tenure or your professional reputation.
That's not to say that one is unaware of audience or that one doesn't want to do good posts. It's more to say that one can be a bit more rough around the edges and that it's productive to have a space with an actual audience in which to be rough around the edges. Ultimately, I don't think that all of the drama of this week will affect my blogging much. I think if anything it's had a positive effect - more readers have come out of the woodwork to post comments, and I've gotten a lot of support in the endeavor that my blog has become. I'm under no illusions that I can keep my real life identity "secret" - that's not been what this is about for me. I think it's more that I want to keep this space what I want it to be, and for now, the way to do that is to keep my real life identity a kind of open secret, if that makes any sense. I've never aspired to be a "big blog" and I have no interest in becoming some sort of professional blogger.
The fact that as many people have found my blog and read it as they do is a constant source of amazement to me - I can't honestly believe so many people are interested! - but I do like the community of bloggers of which I am a part, and I like that this is one writing space for me that is not bound up with achievement even though it is writing for an audience.I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop. Feel free to share this comment with your students (whether on the blog or in class), and if they have questions for me, you can feel free to email them along to me and I'll try to respond to them if I can.
Thanks for the note, and I'm glad that my drama is being used for a good purpose!Dr. Crazy
My first version of my blog (at another address) tended to be a bit harsher, and when somebody threatened to out me, I really did a lot of soul-searching about whether that was a persona I was comfortable with revealing to the outside world, especially as I talk about issues related to my profession. That was when I moved over to reassigned time, and I am very comfortable with my persona in that space.
My reasons for keeping the pseudonym are basically that I do feel a greater comfort level with posting spontaneously, and that is important, I think, to the genre. If I wanted to write a series of essays, or if I wanted to write only about my academic field of specialty, I don't think that I'd choose to do so on a blog mainly because I'd want to publish that material in a more traditional form. Blogging works for me precisely because I keep it separate from my professional writing life, even though I touch on issues related to my profession in posts and even though I do feel that blogging is central to keeping me engaged in my profession.
I suppose a good analogy to make would be that the difference between writing for publication and blogging is much like the difference between participating in classroom formal classroom discussion and chatting with friends about something that you're thinking about related to a class that you're taking. In the conversation with friends, you're more free to try out ideas without worrying about what effect they'll have on your grade; in blogging, you're more free to try out ideas without worrying what effect they'll have on your prospects for tenure or your professional reputation.
That's not to say that one is unaware of audience or that one doesn't want to do good posts. It's more to say that one can be a bit more rough around the edges and that it's productive to have a space with an actual audience in which to be rough around the edges. Ultimately, I don't think that all of the drama of this week will affect my blogging much. I think if anything it's had a positive effect - more readers have come out of the woodwork to post comments, and I've gotten a lot of support in the endeavor that my blog has become. I'm under no illusions that I can keep my real life identity "secret" - that's not been what this is about for me. I think it's more that I want to keep this space what I want it to be, and for now, the way to do that is to keep my real life identity a kind of open secret, if that makes any sense. I've never aspired to be a "big blog" and I have no interest in becoming some sort of professional blogger.
The fact that as many people have found my blog and read it as they do is a constant source of amazement to me - I can't honestly believe so many people are interested! - but I do like the community of bloggers of which I am a part, and I like that this is one writing space for me that is not bound up with achievement even though it is writing for an audience.I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop. Feel free to share this comment with your students (whether on the blog or in class), and if they have questions for me, you can feel free to email them along to me and I'll try to respond to them if I can.
Thanks for the note, and I'm glad that my drama is being used for a good purpose!Dr. Crazy
Empowerment of the Humble
Check out today's New York Times page one story about a blog. Money 'graph:
Perhaps this is what the techno-geeks had in mind when they invented the Internet — a device to squash not only time and space, but also social class and professional hierarchies, putting an unprepossessing Maryland college student with several term papers due in a position to command the attention and grudging respect of some of society’s most famous and powerful personalities.
Perhaps this is what the techno-geeks had in mind when they invented the Internet — a device to squash not only time and space, but also social class and professional hierarchies, putting an unprepossessing Maryland college student with several term papers due in a position to command the attention and grudging respect of some of society’s most famous and powerful personalities.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
ANONYMITY, PERSONAE, PSEUDOYNMS -- PART FOUR
Here's a Daily Kos alum. Nobody knows who he really is. Here's a discussion of who he is. Read the comment thread.
Here's kind of an uberdiscussion of our topic. Read that comment thread. And it links to this.
Key comments:
Anonymity (including pseudonymity) does much good online. It also allows bad things to happen, but so does free speech. Before we tinker with the defaults, we ought to at least recognize what we may be giving up in the realms of (1) the political, (2) the social, and (3) the personal.
1. Anonymity allows people to say and do things that those in power don't like. It enables dissidents to speak and whistleblowers to blow their whistles.
2. Anonymity allows people to say and learn about things from which social conventions otherwise would bar them. It helps a confused teen explore gender issues.
3. Anonymity (and especially pseudonymity) enables a type of playing with our selves (yes, I know what I just said) that may turn out to be transformative of culture and society.
Anonymity also allows some awful things to happen more easily, but we can't fairly decide what we want to do about it unless we also acknowledge its benefits. Just as with free speech
Here's kind of an uberdiscussion of our topic. Read that comment thread. And it links to this.
Key comments:
Anonymity (including pseudonymity) does much good online. It also allows bad things to happen, but so does free speech. Before we tinker with the defaults, we ought to at least recognize what we may be giving up in the realms of (1) the political, (2) the social, and (3) the personal.
1. Anonymity allows people to say and do things that those in power don't like. It enables dissidents to speak and whistleblowers to blow their whistles.
2. Anonymity allows people to say and learn about things from which social conventions otherwise would bar them. It helps a confused teen explore gender issues.
3. Anonymity (and especially pseudonymity) enables a type of playing with our selves (yes, I know what I just said) that may turn out to be transformative of culture and society.
Anonymity also allows some awful things to happen more easily, but we can't fairly decide what we want to do about it unless we also acknowledge its benefits. Just as with free speech
Saturday, November 18, 2006
ANONYMITY, PERSONAE, PSEUDOYNMS -- PART THREE
This is kind of nutsy and boltsy, as opposed to Romantic (pace, Caitlin!); but we're not opposed to nuts and bolts.
And of course, there's a blog that's about, at least nominally, anonymity. This one post in particular was helpful, I thought.
And this has nothing to do with what we're talking about this week, but I just found it and thought you should know about it.
And of course, there's a blog that's about, at least nominally, anonymity. This one post in particular was helpful, I thought.
And this has nothing to do with what we're talking about this week, but I just found it and thought you should know about it.
ANONYMITY, PERSONAE, PSEUDOYNMS -- PART TWO
Dr. Crazy's comment thread led me to this blog with its "bizarre alias." Browse the blog a little -- it's quite engaging -- and ponder the role the alias plays in the the creation of all that is created. From her About Me:
Yes, this really is yet another blog by a disgruntled grad student. I sympathize, but that's just the way it has to be. For hints as to what my bizarre alias means, click here and here and, if needed, here and here. To get a sense of what I'm up to, feel free to check out the sections called "Toward a Wiseass Creed" and "Showings: Some Introductory Wiseassery" in my main blog's left-hand sidebar.
She too has pondered the pseudonym question. In fact, the academic blogs were kind of convulsed by a meme about it last winter.
Yes, this really is yet another blog by a disgruntled grad student. I sympathize, but that's just the way it has to be. For hints as to what my bizarre alias means, click here and here and, if needed, here and here. To get a sense of what I'm up to, feel free to check out the sections called "Toward a Wiseass Creed" and "Showings: Some Introductory Wiseassery" in my main blog's left-hand sidebar.
She too has pondered the pseudonym question. In fact, the academic blogs were kind of convulsed by a meme about it last winter.
ANONYMITY, PERSONAE, PSEUDOYNMS
NEW ASSIGMENT: You know, last week, when all the guest bloggers were here, two things happened that connect me to this week's area of concentration.
1. Trinity's PR department wanted to invite one member of the press to attend. Which meant that I had to ask the bloggers how they felt about that. Some of them didn't want the Hartford Courant in the room. So I told the newspaper to stay home. But before we even reached that point, the PR department was emailing me to ask which bloggers were coming; and I wrote back, "SpazeBoy, Caffeineted Geek Girl, Genghis Conn ..." And she wrote back, "And they would be ...?" And I refused to elaborate, because there's a kind of finality to blog persona. If you're going to look at blogs, you're going to deal with those personae. But it piqued my interest, as did the bloggers preference that the MSM stay away.
2. And then Gabe, who stayed with us only briefly, said something about why he thinks it's important to use his own name. And that made me realize we have never plunged into this whole area.
Consider this academic blogger who, in February, had a few sharp things to say about her persona.
Now read her current postings. You need to scroll down a few days to see she accidentally outed hereself in a posting, which touched off a series of musings yet again on the issue of anonymity.
We will read and think more about that in the next few days.
We welcome and encourage comments and meddling by outside bloggers.
1. Trinity's PR department wanted to invite one member of the press to attend. Which meant that I had to ask the bloggers how they felt about that. Some of them didn't want the Hartford Courant in the room. So I told the newspaper to stay home. But before we even reached that point, the PR department was emailing me to ask which bloggers were coming; and I wrote back, "SpazeBoy, Caffeineted Geek Girl, Genghis Conn ..." And she wrote back, "And they would be ...?" And I refused to elaborate, because there's a kind of finality to blog persona. If you're going to look at blogs, you're going to deal with those personae. But it piqued my interest, as did the bloggers preference that the MSM stay away.
2. And then Gabe, who stayed with us only briefly, said something about why he thinks it's important to use his own name. And that made me realize we have never plunged into this whole area.
Consider this academic blogger who, in February, had a few sharp things to say about her persona.
Now read her current postings. You need to scroll down a few days to see she accidentally outed hereself in a posting, which touched off a series of musings yet again on the issue of anonymity.
We will read and think more about that in the next few days.
We welcome and encourage comments and meddling by outside bloggers.
Saturday!!
Sorry to be playing catch-up on the weekend. Check this site after 1 p.m. today for some new details on stuff we will discuss this week. I did go to see Jimmy Wales, by the way.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Now That You've All Done That First Assignment...
...describing your own relationship to information, try a second. Post a description of one (or all) of the bloggers you met Monday night. What are THEY trying to do? What's their mission? If you focus on one person but feel you don't know enough, you can always ask questions through a comment on their blogs or email them .
Monday, November 13, 2006
In the words of Ron Burgundy...
... You stay classy, Blogging class! This was your finest night so far. I think the "Others" were impressed with your questions and ideas, and so was I. Nights like this one are why I teach. Thanks to the CT bloggers for showing up.
So ... what is your relationship to information?
So ... what is your relationship to information?
Saturday, November 11, 2006
CT Blogger Zombies
They are coming. Many of them are coming. And they read your blogs. So read their stuff. Lamontblog, Connecticut Local Politics, Caffeinated Geek Girl, Spazeboy, Connecticut Bob, et al. Read MyDD and Kos again. And blog some homework about them. And get your questions ready. And interesting thought: did "netroots"happen as a matter of intention or did the activity come first, with an overarching name for it applied later?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Politix and Apologia
I am so sorry about Monday night. Believe me, if I could have had it otherwise, I would have. I seem rather star-crossed this fall. But my family emerged frim its latest trial basically unscathed. Meanwhile, the next class is not to be missed. Every manner of CT political blogger will be there. Well, that's not quite true, but all kind of folks are showing up in large numbers. So, meanwhile, go back to all the sites that covered Lieberman, Lamont and the rest of the election and refresh your memories.
Monday, November 06, 2006
For class
In this post, we read one vision of what the web can be. But how do you set up rules to make it work? .
Or is it?
This post by Scott seems to go with this post by Steph, at least in the sense that blogging dispenses with the illusion on imprtiality. Disclosure is everything.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
OK, my head is spinning
There's actually quite a lot of discussion out there in the blogopshere about what is right and what is not. Consider this account of digg -- remember digg? -- and whether its founder as honored the principle of conversation. But digg is also a place where there has been a lot of discussion of the site TechCrunch and whether it broke a rule by altering a post (at least, I think that's the problem ....some of this stuff is like walking into the middle of a movie). And then there's the recent scandal in which bloggers turned out to be working for Wal-Mart. I'm floored even by the idea that there's something called WOMMA which apparently tries to create ethics for the viral marketing crowd.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
It seems to me that attempts to create any kind of code all sort of resemble on another and maybe don't address the issues of the sheer wildness of unsupervised blgging. Meanwhile, I think one of the key areas is privacy and use of information. When you look here, make sure to click on the Rosen NYT article. That gives us a lot to go on. But, in a way, we're a living lab right here. What can you post about what goes in in class and out of class? Everything? What kinds of protections do we have. What happens when Jason (or somebody) reads something and wants to meet us?
In this interview, Jay Rosen -- different Rosen -- offers this:
You speak of a “low barrier to entry and a high degree of anonymity for the author.” But for most users the higher the anonymity factor for the author, the higher the barrier of trust.
What some people can’t seem to get over is that other people can say any damn thing they want on the Internet! How can you trust any of it? is their natural reaction to all open systems. Closed systems—and professional journalism is one—develop trust in one way. Open systems have to do it a much different way. Expecting one to look like the other is unreasonable
In this interview, Jay Rosen -- different Rosen -- offers this:
You speak of a “low barrier to entry and a high degree of anonymity for the author.” But for most users the higher the anonymity factor for the author, the higher the barrier of trust.
What some people can’t seem to get over is that other people can say any damn thing they want on the Internet! How can you trust any of it? is their natural reaction to all open systems. Closed systems—and professional journalism is one—develop trust in one way. Open systems have to do it a much different way. Expecting one to look like the other is unreasonable
Ethics?
I think Brenda has got some pretty cool ideas, and I especially think we ould spend a little time talking about ethics for bloggers, especially because some of you were a little freaked by Jason. The next step, I would think would be wondering what the rules are. So look at Brenda''s stuff. I think one of my last year's people wrote a paper on this. The question is, do I still have it?
Good Suggestions!
I'll spend the afternoon kind of organizing them. Just to clarify, I had planned to take one last quick snapshot of blogs for thisMonday; but the big class on blogs and the election will be the 13th, a post-mortem attended by as many political bloggers as I can round up. I'll be with a lot of them in Meriden on Tuesday night and will pass out invitations and directions.
But, yes, let's take the quick pre-election snapshot right now, so visit Kos and MyDD and some of the local blogs. If you need a refresher on them I can provide one.
But, yes, let's take the quick pre-election snapshot right now, so visit Kos and MyDD and some of the local blogs. If you need a refresher on them I can provide one.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Input!
I'm not sure I'll get any answers, but what would you like to discuss on Nov. 6? I have big plans for Nov. 13, but I'm kind of open to paths you might like to follow right now. Humor and rhetoric are temporarily on the plate, but I really could adapt if somebody wanted to go somewhere else. Don't be afraid to share. It's very bloggish to do so. Tell me what you think we should read and discuss this week.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
And Bill Gates Said Hah!
I don't really know what to teach this week.
So what is it about blogging and humor? Many of you probably know this site dedicated to mocking the political elite. But do you know this site dedicated to mocking ...everything? Especially, this week, bloggers. (You have to read a lot of Three Bulls to really get it.) Do you go to the internet for humor? If so, what kind of humor do you get there that you couldn't get anywhere else? What doesn't work? Share.
Here is a passage from The Cluetrain Manifesto, referencing laughter on the internet:
So here comes Joe Six-Pack onto AOL. What does he know about netliness? Nothing. Zilch. He has no cultural context whatsoever. But soon, very soon, what he hears is something he never heard in TV Land: people cracking up.
"That ain't no laugh track neither," Joe is thinking and goes looking for the source of this strange, new, rather seductive sound.
So here's a little story problem for ya, class. If the Internet has 50 million people on it, and they're not all as dumb as they look, but the corporations trying to make a fast buck off their asses are as dumb as they look, how long before Joe is laughing as hard as everyone else?
The correct answer of course: not long at all. And as soon as he starts laughing, he's not Joe Six-Pack anymore. He's no longer part of some passive couch-potato target demographic. Because the Net connects people to each other, and impassions and empowers through those connections, the media dream of the Web as another acquiescent mass-consumer market is a figment and a fantasy.
The Internet is inherently seditious. It undermines unthinking respect for centralized authority, whether that "authority" is the neatly homogenized voice of broadcast advertising or the smarmy rhetoric of the corporate annual report.
And Internet technology has also threaded its way deep into the heart of Corporate Empire, where once upon a time, lockstep loyalty to the chairman's latest attempt at insight was no further away than the mimeograph machine. One memo from Mr. Big and everyone believed (or so Mr. Big liked to think).
No more. The same kind of seditious deconstruction that's being practiced on the Web today, just for the hell of it, is also seeping onto the company intranet. How many satires are floating around there, one wonders: of the latest hyperinflated restructuring plan, of the over-sincere cultural-sensitivity training sessions Human Resources made mandatory last week, of all the gibberish that passes for "management" — or has passed up until now.
Step back a frame or two. Zoom out. Isn't that weird? Workers and markets are speaking the same language! And they're both speaking it in the same shoot-from-the-hip, unedited, devil-take-the-hindmost style.
This conversation may be irreverent of eternal verities, but it's not all jokes. Whether in the marketplace or at work, people do have genuine, serious concerns. And we have something else as well: knowledge. Not the sort of boring, abstract knowledge that "Knowledge Management" wants to manage. No. The real thing. We have knowledge of what we do and how we do it — our craft — and it drives our voices; it's what we most like to talk about.
But this whole gamut of conversation, from infinite jest to point-specific expertise: who needs it?
Companies need it. Without it they can't innovate, build consensus, or go to market. Markets need it. Without it they don't know what works and what doesn't; don't know why they should give a damn. Cultures need it. Without play and knowledge in equal measure, they begin to die. People get gloomy, anxious, and depressed. Eventually, the guns come out.
So what is it about blogging and humor? Many of you probably know this site dedicated to mocking the political elite. But do you know this site dedicated to mocking ...everything? Especially, this week, bloggers. (You have to read a lot of Three Bulls to really get it.) Do you go to the internet for humor? If so, what kind of humor do you get there that you couldn't get anywhere else? What doesn't work? Share.
Here is a passage from The Cluetrain Manifesto, referencing laughter on the internet:
So here comes Joe Six-Pack onto AOL. What does he know about netliness? Nothing. Zilch. He has no cultural context whatsoever. But soon, very soon, what he hears is something he never heard in TV Land: people cracking up.
"That ain't no laugh track neither," Joe is thinking and goes looking for the source of this strange, new, rather seductive sound.
So here's a little story problem for ya, class. If the Internet has 50 million people on it, and they're not all as dumb as they look, but the corporations trying to make a fast buck off their asses are as dumb as they look, how long before Joe is laughing as hard as everyone else?
The correct answer of course: not long at all. And as soon as he starts laughing, he's not Joe Six-Pack anymore. He's no longer part of some passive couch-potato target demographic. Because the Net connects people to each other, and impassions and empowers through those connections, the media dream of the Web as another acquiescent mass-consumer market is a figment and a fantasy.
The Internet is inherently seditious. It undermines unthinking respect for centralized authority, whether that "authority" is the neatly homogenized voice of broadcast advertising or the smarmy rhetoric of the corporate annual report.
And Internet technology has also threaded its way deep into the heart of Corporate Empire, where once upon a time, lockstep loyalty to the chairman's latest attempt at insight was no further away than the mimeograph machine. One memo from Mr. Big and everyone believed (or so Mr. Big liked to think).
No more. The same kind of seditious deconstruction that's being practiced on the Web today, just for the hell of it, is also seeping onto the company intranet. How many satires are floating around there, one wonders: of the latest hyperinflated restructuring plan, of the over-sincere cultural-sensitivity training sessions Human Resources made mandatory last week, of all the gibberish that passes for "management" — or has passed up until now.
Step back a frame or two. Zoom out. Isn't that weird? Workers and markets are speaking the same language! And they're both speaking it in the same shoot-from-the-hip, unedited, devil-take-the-hindmost style.
This conversation may be irreverent of eternal verities, but it's not all jokes. Whether in the marketplace or at work, people do have genuine, serious concerns. And we have something else as well: knowledge. Not the sort of boring, abstract knowledge that "Knowledge Management" wants to manage. No. The real thing. We have knowledge of what we do and how we do it — our craft — and it drives our voices; it's what we most like to talk about.
But this whole gamut of conversation, from infinite jest to point-specific expertise: who needs it?
Companies need it. Without it they can't innovate, build consensus, or go to market. Markets need it. Without it they don't know what works and what doesn't; don't know why they should give a damn. Cultures need it. Without play and knowledge in equal measure, they begin to die. People get gloomy, anxious, and depressed. Eventually, the guns come out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)