Doubt anyone's reading this anymore, but just in case...
If you're interested in writing, NOW is the best time to join an online, multi-author story known as the NeS (see my first post for a general idea of what it is). I don't care who you are, I don't buy any excuses of "I'm not a good writer" and I'll be MORE than willing to help anyone interested in getting involved (it's big and scary, requesting help is to be expected). Check out the first two posts here for an array of useful links and resources concerning NeS:
http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=18373#post251149
Even if you or anyone you know are not interested in writing (or able to), PLEASE throw out ANY suggestions for story ideas or the like you may or may not have either on the thread linked above, or here, or whatever.
Tell your friends, tell them to tell your friends, contact me (if it's Gebohq on the internet, it's me -- I have hotmail, myspace, AIM, MSN messenger, etc.) with whatever you can offer. :)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The One Ring, now only $29.99/mo.!
Assignment: Have we as a society become overly obsessed with entertaining ourselves? How much investment do we have in the trivial? How dependent our our existences based on our interactions with electronic media? The purpose of this assignment is to address such questions. You are to live one day (a straight 24 hour period) without interacting with any form of electronic media. This assignment is based on the essay Danna Walker “The Longest Day” which ran in the Washington Post on Sunday August 5, 2007. Make sure to reflect on the essay and other readings/discussions in class. What did you make of this experience? How hard was it to accomplish? What were were expectations? What did you learn from it?
First, let's set the stage for this assignment in my personal context. On any average day, I'm certainly little different than anyone else of my generation: I have my computer on all the time, with my instant messenger programs running, browsing the Internet while watching cartoons on TV or playing video games. If I drive, the radio (or equivalent audio) is playing, and while I dislike talking on the phone, my cellphone is nevertheless on and ready to be answered, should someone call. However, I've "fasted" at least for one week before when on a relatively recent family vacation, so a day hardly seemed an issue. I started on a Friday night (technically Saturday since it was at 2AM) and until 2AM the next night, cut myself off from all electronic media. For nearly all my waking hours that day, I took the opportunity to read my required reading for my Chinese Lit. class, Journey to the West, only breaking for about an hour to help my sister and father move some things to her new house (during which I required that the radio and such had to be off, so we *gasp* talked to each other! I know, what a concept.) I might need another three days like this one soon to get through the other three volumes of that book...
Overall, the day was not hard for me at all. The book is actually fairly interesting to read, and while it was a bit exhausting to continually read for so many hours on end, it's not something I haven't done before on my own accord with a Harry Potter or Dark Tower book. Admittedly, however, I'm a bit disappointed in myself when I finished the first volume a half-hour before 2AM, and instead of just going to sleep, I read a little of another book and waited until after 2AM so that I could turn my computer back on and check on "what I missed" on my usual Internet sites. There was nothing that couldn't have waited until tomorrow, yet, like Frodo learning that The Ring hadn't been lost but instead was in Sam's possession in The Return of the King, I was greedy of that which I knew could use again. It doesn't help that I have a sort of superstition that "the party starts when I'm gone" and, while I don't quite see the Internet as literally a party, it does feel like "stuff happens" for lack of better words. Oh well -- nothing I didn't already know before.
There's a part of me that sighs at the concept of what's essentially considered a "modern life fast" as if electronic media were as necessary as food, that people would actually complain about parting with their cellphones or the radio in their car. Are things like reading a book or doing some manual labor really that difficult or undesirable? And yet, part of me would be a hypocrite if I were to judge others less for thinking that -- I would unlikely be able to recognize myself without technological self-extensions such as video games and the Internet. But why should these newer media be singled out? Why are newspapers exempt from similar scrutiny, or any print for that matter, or the spoken word? Anything man-made -- technology -- is an extension of ourselves, extensions that are remediations of each other (can you think in terms outside of language? What came first: thought or technology?). But I digress -- this media deprivation experience is one that should be exercised more often, so long as it makes people more aware.
I think, when it comes down to it, questions about our culture's dependence on entertainment and technology is a bit misleading. Our (America's) main export is, at least characteristically within this century, in entertainment. For the majority of our short national existence, we've held an isolationist perception on world events. Our lives are not unlike the Hobbits that lived in the Shire in this sense, and like them, we ultimately can not ignore the events around us, but unlike them, we are no longer small and humble as a people, but instead, spreading our influence more like Mordor. Books have already examined the nature of Tolkien's works and the stories they tell of technology and, by default, power, culminated in the One Ring, so I'll avoid going on about that. I do believe however, that deprivation is not the ultimate answer to the problems that arise from these technologies -- casting the One Ring into Mount Doom will not save our Middle Earth, because we're the ones that created it, and we would destroy ourselves and what makes us human in the process. Then what?
I don't know. What do you all think?
First, let's set the stage for this assignment in my personal context. On any average day, I'm certainly little different than anyone else of my generation: I have my computer on all the time, with my instant messenger programs running, browsing the Internet while watching cartoons on TV or playing video games. If I drive, the radio (or equivalent audio) is playing, and while I dislike talking on the phone, my cellphone is nevertheless on and ready to be answered, should someone call. However, I've "fasted" at least for one week before when on a relatively recent family vacation, so a day hardly seemed an issue. I started on a Friday night (technically Saturday since it was at 2AM) and until 2AM the next night, cut myself off from all electronic media. For nearly all my waking hours that day, I took the opportunity to read my required reading for my Chinese Lit. class, Journey to the West, only breaking for about an hour to help my sister and father move some things to her new house (during which I required that the radio and such had to be off, so we *gasp* talked to each other! I know, what a concept.) I might need another three days like this one soon to get through the other three volumes of that book...
Overall, the day was not hard for me at all. The book is actually fairly interesting to read, and while it was a bit exhausting to continually read for so many hours on end, it's not something I haven't done before on my own accord with a Harry Potter or Dark Tower book. Admittedly, however, I'm a bit disappointed in myself when I finished the first volume a half-hour before 2AM, and instead of just going to sleep, I read a little of another book and waited until after 2AM so that I could turn my computer back on and check on "what I missed" on my usual Internet sites. There was nothing that couldn't have waited until tomorrow, yet, like Frodo learning that The Ring hadn't been lost but instead was in Sam's possession in The Return of the King, I was greedy of that which I knew could use again. It doesn't help that I have a sort of superstition that "the party starts when I'm gone" and, while I don't quite see the Internet as literally a party, it does feel like "stuff happens" for lack of better words. Oh well -- nothing I didn't already know before.
There's a part of me that sighs at the concept of what's essentially considered a "modern life fast" as if electronic media were as necessary as food, that people would actually complain about parting with their cellphones or the radio in their car. Are things like reading a book or doing some manual labor really that difficult or undesirable? And yet, part of me would be a hypocrite if I were to judge others less for thinking that -- I would unlikely be able to recognize myself without technological self-extensions such as video games and the Internet. But why should these newer media be singled out? Why are newspapers exempt from similar scrutiny, or any print for that matter, or the spoken word? Anything man-made -- technology -- is an extension of ourselves, extensions that are remediations of each other (can you think in terms outside of language? What came first: thought or technology?). But I digress -- this media deprivation experience is one that should be exercised more often, so long as it makes people more aware.
I think, when it comes down to it, questions about our culture's dependence on entertainment and technology is a bit misleading. Our (America's) main export is, at least characteristically within this century, in entertainment. For the majority of our short national existence, we've held an isolationist perception on world events. Our lives are not unlike the Hobbits that lived in the Shire in this sense, and like them, we ultimately can not ignore the events around us, but unlike them, we are no longer small and humble as a people, but instead, spreading our influence more like Mordor. Books have already examined the nature of Tolkien's works and the stories they tell of technology and, by default, power, culminated in the One Ring, so I'll avoid going on about that. I do believe however, that deprivation is not the ultimate answer to the problems that arise from these technologies -- casting the One Ring into Mount Doom will not save our Middle Earth, because we're the ones that created it, and we would destroy ourselves and what makes us human in the process. Then what?
I don't know. What do you all think?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Two Cultures? Why not both?
Assignment: Who won you over in “Two Cultures”? Engage the discussion of Postman and Paglia and state your own perspective. Comment on specific points that the author’s make in developing your perspective on the issues at hand.
First, some context, for my theoretically-ignorant audience. "Two Cultures - Television versus Print" records a dialogue between two scholars: Camielle Paglia, who argues for the side of television, and Neil Postman, who argues for the side of print. The dialogue debates the significance and power of each, their effects on our present culture, and how education should work with each (primarily with television). The dialogue is structured such that the reader is weighing the pros and cons of print and television, and while the dialogue ends with no clear "victor," the two scholars appear to both agree that 1) both print and television are powerful influences on our culture (though it is not agreed on whether television is a good or bad influence) and 2) that "print" and the philosophies that arise from it should be reinforced in our culture's education (though it is not agreed upon whether this need is to resist or compliment television and its philosophies).
At first, I might have said that Paglia won me over. From what I read, she is born in a generation closer to my own, and consequentially shares a perception on print and television more similar to my own than Postman. With every argument that Postman raises, she appears to agree with his strengths and then raises other perspectives that uncover the apparent flaws in Postman's perceptions. However, I am also a writer, and sympathize with who I perceive to be the "bad guy" -- Postman. I'm not ignorant to the unfair advantages that Paglia has in both opening and closing the dialogue, in standing for the underdog side of the "unacademic" medium of television, the "defensive" rebel figure against the established "offensive" norm (the David and Goliath structure), and that, at the end, she comes to the same conclusion as Postman, even if her premises in constructing her arguments are different. However, the structure of the conflicting viewpoints is misleading, and I am forced to say that neither Paglia nor Postman ultimately have the more compelling argument as they are structured in this debate.
...what?
If you examine the arguments that are being made, print and television are not the root of their debate, but of the philosophies that they encourage. Paglia states "The history of Western civilization has been a constant struggle between these two impulses [Apollonian and Dionysian], an unending tennis match between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos," and while she had said that in regards to the suppression and recent return of "paganism" through television, I see it as a summary of their dialogue. The two do a very thorough job of clarifying the Apollonian nature of print and the Dionysian nature of television. They start with the Judeo-Christian roots in God as a "word-only" God, forbidding images so as to discourage the Dionysian paganism, which is a cornerstone of Western civilization, defining literacy (and Apollonian philosophy) as a technological and not "natural" philosophy ("Humans are not biologically programmed to be literate"). They then continue that visuals -- and television by default -- are Dionysian, as they encourage instinct over thinking, of "rapidly losing any sense of sacrality" (losing the Apollonian element). The argument, then, is Apollonian versus Dionysian -- the ego versus the id. To argue that one side is more right than the other would be to argue whether ying or yang is more right. The truth is, you need both.
In Paglia's defense, I do not think she is arguing against print, but the structure of this debate attempts to lure the reader into thinking that they should believe in one side or the other. I'm fairly certain that she actually understand this necessary balance, if only because of her conclusion. Postman's main concern is that television (and the visual-Dionysian philosophy) will overpower culture, to which Paglia ultimately agrees needs to be checked with "logocentric" education. While there are a few instances Postman appears to erroneously argue his points (his correlation with "sacred" as Apollonian and "secular" with Dionysian, mostly), I feel those moments are not truly erroneous, but merely incorrect labels of an otherwise correct perception of the two philosophies.
So I wasn't entirely truthful -- I feel Paglia made the better argument. I just think my assessment isn't made on "content," but instead, on the medium itself, and my preconceived perceptions that I share with Paglia.
Due to how I tackled this assignment, I feel I wasn't able to tackle some of the specifics the two mentioned: how the Judeo-Christian religions (and Western civilization by consequence) are Apollonian, what exactly Apollonian and Dionysian philosophies consist of in this context, philosophical detachment, etc. If necessary, I will write another post tackling these specifics.
First, some context, for my theoretically-ignorant audience. "Two Cultures - Television versus Print" records a dialogue between two scholars: Camielle Paglia, who argues for the side of television, and Neil Postman, who argues for the side of print. The dialogue debates the significance and power of each, their effects on our present culture, and how education should work with each (primarily with television). The dialogue is structured such that the reader is weighing the pros and cons of print and television, and while the dialogue ends with no clear "victor," the two scholars appear to both agree that 1) both print and television are powerful influences on our culture (though it is not agreed on whether television is a good or bad influence) and 2) that "print" and the philosophies that arise from it should be reinforced in our culture's education (though it is not agreed upon whether this need is to resist or compliment television and its philosophies).
At first, I might have said that Paglia won me over. From what I read, she is born in a generation closer to my own, and consequentially shares a perception on print and television more similar to my own than Postman. With every argument that Postman raises, she appears to agree with his strengths and then raises other perspectives that uncover the apparent flaws in Postman's perceptions. However, I am also a writer, and sympathize with who I perceive to be the "bad guy" -- Postman. I'm not ignorant to the unfair advantages that Paglia has in both opening and closing the dialogue, in standing for the underdog side of the "unacademic" medium of television, the "defensive" rebel figure against the established "offensive" norm (the David and Goliath structure), and that, at the end, she comes to the same conclusion as Postman, even if her premises in constructing her arguments are different. However, the structure of the conflicting viewpoints is misleading, and I am forced to say that neither Paglia nor Postman ultimately have the more compelling argument as they are structured in this debate.
...what?
If you examine the arguments that are being made, print and television are not the root of their debate, but of the philosophies that they encourage. Paglia states "The history of Western civilization has been a constant struggle between these two impulses [Apollonian and Dionysian], an unending tennis match between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos," and while she had said that in regards to the suppression and recent return of "paganism" through television, I see it as a summary of their dialogue. The two do a very thorough job of clarifying the Apollonian nature of print and the Dionysian nature of television. They start with the Judeo-Christian roots in God as a "word-only" God, forbidding images so as to discourage the Dionysian paganism, which is a cornerstone of Western civilization, defining literacy (and Apollonian philosophy) as a technological and not "natural" philosophy ("Humans are not biologically programmed to be literate"). They then continue that visuals -- and television by default -- are Dionysian, as they encourage instinct over thinking, of "rapidly losing any sense of sacrality" (losing the Apollonian element). The argument, then, is Apollonian versus Dionysian -- the ego versus the id. To argue that one side is more right than the other would be to argue whether ying or yang is more right. The truth is, you need both.
In Paglia's defense, I do not think she is arguing against print, but the structure of this debate attempts to lure the reader into thinking that they should believe in one side or the other. I'm fairly certain that she actually understand this necessary balance, if only because of her conclusion. Postman's main concern is that television (and the visual-Dionysian philosophy) will overpower culture, to which Paglia ultimately agrees needs to be checked with "logocentric" education. While there are a few instances Postman appears to erroneously argue his points (his correlation with "sacred" as Apollonian and "secular" with Dionysian, mostly), I feel those moments are not truly erroneous, but merely incorrect labels of an otherwise correct perception of the two philosophies.
So I wasn't entirely truthful -- I feel Paglia made the better argument. I just think my assessment isn't made on "content," but instead, on the medium itself, and my preconceived perceptions that I share with Paglia.
Due to how I tackled this assignment, I feel I wasn't able to tackle some of the specifics the two mentioned: how the Judeo-Christian religions (and Western civilization by consequence) are Apollonian, what exactly Apollonian and Dionysian philosophies consist of in this context, philosophical detachment, etc. If necessary, I will write another post tackling these specifics.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
"...game over, man! Game over!"
(That fairly-famous line is said by Hudson, from the movie Aliens. Who doesn't love the 80's?)
While my media habits have certainly included movies, TV, animations, the Internet, books, and yes, even the handy pencil-and-paper medium, my greatest indulgence is in the realm of games. Video games, to be specific. I've been hooked on video games for as long as I can remember -- I drew the beginning of World 8-2 of Super Mario Bros. for a first grade project, and that was some years after first being in love with video games, no exaggeration. I can't imagine a future where I'm not loving video games. If it weren't for my lack of funds, I'd be indulging in virtually every gaming-related media I could grab. If you've read my previous post, you can take a guess about my obsession with things that go "blip-blip" (even if video games haven't really made those sort of noises since the Atari days). Most of my other media habits have stemmed from something related to video games. Even fictional writing, which could arguably be an equal or greater passion, flourished from my experiences on an online gaming forum. So let's stick with my interests in gaming, shall we?
Even in the layman's understanding of media, video games are a relatively new medium -- one that has only very recently been "taken seriously" (Translation: "Holy crap, people are making serious money out of these play-things! Guess we better take a look at them..."). The question, I ask myself, is where (or what) will these new medium head? Will it continue to be a medium that speaks to me, and in turn, I feel I can interact with, or will it stagnate and turn to little more than a bastardized film medium? "What's the difference?" you may ask. Well, a medium, in this context, is a means of communicating something from one person(s) to another person(s) through a certain technology. That medium can be targeted to a large or small number of people, it can engage a sense in high or low representation, and it can involve a high or low amount of participation. It is the element of participation -- high participation, in this case -- that significantly separates the video game medium from most other mediums. Some people may argue otherwise, believing firmly in technological determinism, and say that video games kills the imagination, and encourages things like violence in real life when presented with violence in the video game medium. My bias would say that, more than most other mediums, video games have the potential to be just the opposite.
What can I do to play my part in the gaming industry, economy, and culture, short of developing it myself? I can expand my knowledge in other media -- no one medium is an island, and my understanding of a medium's strengths and weaknesses, its past and present products, and its relation with video games will strengthen my own ability to understand and consume gaming as a medium of its own -- and I can use these other media to engage in a dialogue with others, to share my own insights about the potential of gaming as a medium and to gain their possible critiques on the gaming medium. For every "game over" that occurs in the development of the gaming medium, there is the ability to continue, to reset, to press on.
While my media habits have certainly included movies, TV, animations, the Internet, books, and yes, even the handy pencil-and-paper medium, my greatest indulgence is in the realm of games. Video games, to be specific. I've been hooked on video games for as long as I can remember -- I drew the beginning of World 8-2 of Super Mario Bros. for a first grade project, and that was some years after first being in love with video games, no exaggeration. I can't imagine a future where I'm not loving video games. If it weren't for my lack of funds, I'd be indulging in virtually every gaming-related media I could grab. If you've read my previous post, you can take a guess about my obsession with things that go "blip-blip" (even if video games haven't really made those sort of noises since the Atari days). Most of my other media habits have stemmed from something related to video games. Even fictional writing, which could arguably be an equal or greater passion, flourished from my experiences on an online gaming forum. So let's stick with my interests in gaming, shall we?
Even in the layman's understanding of media, video games are a relatively new medium -- one that has only very recently been "taken seriously" (Translation: "Holy crap, people are making serious money out of these play-things! Guess we better take a look at them..."). The question, I ask myself, is where (or what) will these new medium head? Will it continue to be a medium that speaks to me, and in turn, I feel I can interact with, or will it stagnate and turn to little more than a bastardized film medium? "What's the difference?" you may ask. Well, a medium, in this context, is a means of communicating something from one person(s) to another person(s) through a certain technology. That medium can be targeted to a large or small number of people, it can engage a sense in high or low representation, and it can involve a high or low amount of participation. It is the element of participation -- high participation, in this case -- that significantly separates the video game medium from most other mediums. Some people may argue otherwise, believing firmly in technological determinism, and say that video games kills the imagination, and encourages things like violence in real life when presented with violence in the video game medium. My bias would say that, more than most other mediums, video games have the potential to be just the opposite.
What can I do to play my part in the gaming industry, economy, and culture, short of developing it myself? I can expand my knowledge in other media -- no one medium is an island, and my understanding of a medium's strengths and weaknesses, its past and present products, and its relation with video games will strengthen my own ability to understand and consume gaming as a medium of its own -- and I can use these other media to engage in a dialogue with others, to share my own insights about the potential of gaming as a medium and to gain their possible critiques on the gaming medium. For every "game over" that occurs in the development of the gaming medium, there is the ability to continue, to reset, to press on.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The blogs that I will be following
I've decided to follow two blogs, since I am not sure the second one will be sufficient for this class. I usually prefer to get my news from what other people provide on forums, word of mouth, etc., if I get my news at all.
The first is The Christian Science Monitor. It's name could be misleading, since it's not focused on religon.
The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/
The second is a weekly blog/podcast called "Horseshoes & Handgrenades." They collect a variety of random, small-news events and talk about them.
Horseshoes & Handgrenades
http://www.horseshoes-handgrenades.com/
Between the two, I imagine I should get a fairly diverse scope of news.
The first is The Christian Science Monitor. It's name could be misleading, since it's not focused on religon.
The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/
The second is a weekly blog/podcast called "Horseshoes & Handgrenades." They collect a variety of random, small-news events and talk about them.
Horseshoes & Handgrenades
http://www.horseshoes-handgrenades.com/
Between the two, I imagine I should get a fairly diverse scope of news.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
All about me
Hello! Let's have a narcissistic kick and talk all about me!
My name is Scott Gajewski. I just turned 24 years old, and will be graduating as an Media and Communications Studies major (with a minor in Writing - Creative Fiction) in Spring 2008. I was formerly an Interactive Art major, and before that, an Animation major. As you might guess from my picture, I'm an avid gamer, and hope to pursue a career in the gaming industry. I'm hoping this class (American Studies 222) will ultimately help fulfill my goal in that matter. You can find out more about me on the following sites, should you be interested:
My myspace page:
http://www.myspace.com/gebohq
My livejournal page:
http://gebohq.livejournal.com
My list of videogames (as they are a big part of my life):
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~scott3/videogamelist.html
Online, I'm better known as Gebohq. If there's something posted under that name anywhere on the Internet, you can be pretty sure it's from me. My main interest involves a collaboratively-written story, called The Never-ending Story Thread ( better known as NeS, and not related to the story written by Michael Ende) -- a story that's been written now for over eight years. I'm hoping to create a wiki-site of sorts as a source of reference for the craziness that is NeS, but until then, I would suggest viewing the webcomic based on the very beginning of the story thread:
A Never-ending Story Illustrated (NeS webcomic)
http://nes.sorrowind.net
And, if you dare to look at any of the story thread itself, the first two posts of the following link should provide a starting place to work from... really, though, it's a lot easier to just talk to me about it. :)
NeS workshop
http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=18373
And that's me in a nutshell. (No, wait, this is me in a nutshell -- "Help! Help! I'm trapped in a nutshell!")
My name is Scott Gajewski. I just turned 24 years old, and will be graduating as an Media and Communications Studies major (with a minor in Writing - Creative Fiction) in Spring 2008. I was formerly an Interactive Art major, and before that, an Animation major. As you might guess from my picture, I'm an avid gamer, and hope to pursue a career in the gaming industry. I'm hoping this class (American Studies 222) will ultimately help fulfill my goal in that matter. You can find out more about me on the following sites, should you be interested:
My myspace page:
http://www.myspace.com/gebohq
My livejournal page:
http://gebohq.livejournal.com
My list of videogames (as they are a big part of my life):
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~scott3/videogamelist.html
Online, I'm better known as Gebohq. If there's something posted under that name anywhere on the Internet, you can be pretty sure it's from me. My main interest involves a collaboratively-written story, called The Never-ending Story Thread ( better known as NeS, and not related to the story written by Michael Ende) -- a story that's been written now for over eight years. I'm hoping to create a wiki-site of sorts as a source of reference for the craziness that is NeS, but until then, I would suggest viewing the webcomic based on the very beginning of the story thread:
A Never-ending Story Illustrated (NeS webcomic)
http://nes.sorrowind.net
And, if you dare to look at any of the story thread itself, the first two posts of the following link should provide a starting place to work from... really, though, it's a lot easier to just talk to me about it. :)
NeS workshop
http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=18373
And that's me in a nutshell. (No, wait, this is me in a nutshell -- "Help! Help! I'm trapped in a nutshell!")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)