Blog appeal?

I’ve been thinking about the future of books since our discussion last night.  I’ve been trying to better understand Sven’s seemingly irrational fear of the fate of the book.  I agree with what many people said in class; I do not think that actual physical books will ever become things of the past.  No matter how many books are put on line, I think tangible books will continue to be published.

What I think is at stake here, though, is perhaps the ability to write a book; more specifically, a good book.  As I mentioned in class, books that are published are read and approved by the people who publish them.  I’m not saying that crappy books don’t get published, but a book at least follows some rules to be published.  Maybe the story of the book is not appealing to everyone, but at least we know it’s still a book by it’s style, form, etc.   When people write on line though, they do not have to follow any rules.  They can write whatever they want in any form or style they want.  Their work does not have to be approved by anyone and does not run the risk of being rejected.

Because writing on line is in some cases easier than getting your work published, I can see how it would attract many people.  Also, some writers probably do not want to write ”traditional” books.  If more and more people are writing on line and not following any rules or structure, will our ability, as a culture, to write a “traditional” book decrease?  Will fewer people attempt to write books?  Will the form of the novel be forgotten?  Will books be less appealing because there will be so many other things to read? 

If people only write on line, they may use on line or AIM lingo, as if it were “real” or the proper way to write.  As someone pointed out in class, some students use AIM lingo in their school papers.  What if people who write books on line begin to use this on line language as well and it soon becomes the norm?  Ok, I know this is a stretch, but I think it’s something to consider.  The fact that AIM and texting even have their own “languages” shows the power they have.  What if kids learn this language at an early age and it becomes what they are most confortable with?  It seems that they are already much more comfortable with it than even people our age are.  Although I support almost any outlet which allows kids the chance to write and express themselves, is it possible that some may be harmful to them and their development?  Will future generations be less able to write well because they are so accustomed to IMing and texting? 

I enjoyed reading Convergence Culture because it challenged some of the ways I think about things, such as TV and the internet.  I feel like I only ever hear negative things about reality television.  Most of us complain that it’s a hoax and it’s not really reality.  Some people complain that  there’s nothing on TV anymore except reality TV, etc.  I’ve always felt kind of indifferent to it.  I figure, if you don’t want to watch, then don’t.  However, the chapters “Spoiling Survivor” and “Buying into American Idol” proved the benefits of reality TV. 

There are people are always going to say that there is something better to do than watch TV.  But, most people are always going to watch at least some TV.  As we saw in Convergence Culture, shows like Survivor and American Idol, no matter how “unrealistic,” encourage interaction and a sense of community between their fans.  In the “Spoiling Survivor” chapter, Jenkins explains: “What holds a collective intelligence together is not the possession of knowledge- which is relatively static, but the social process of acquiring knowledge- which is dynamic and participatory, continually testing and reaffirming the group’s social ties” (54).  Even though the Survivor spoilers seemed a little crazy, at least they were interested in and passionate about something.  They were also given the opportunity to meet others who had the same goals and were able to work together, creating a Spoiling Survivor community.  As Jenkins points out, though, this can be taken too far when the fans begin to follow the possible participants on the show. 

This sense of common interest is American Idol’s primary benefit, too.  Children, teens, and adults watch the show.  Jenkins shows how it becomes a catalyst for conversations not just among family members, but at work and school as well.  Some people may think there are better or more important things to discuss than American Idol or Survivor, but if it ignites a conversation where there otherwise would not have been one, then that’s the point.  I remeber during my freshman year of college all of the girls on  my floor would get together to watch these shows.  It helped to break the ice, giving us all something we could relate to and discuss with each other.  If you’re going to watch TV, then why not watch shows like this then be able to discuss them with everyone else? If I had kids, I think I would rather have them watch American Idol and Survivor and get excited about it, feel like “participants” as Jenkins says, and be motivated enough to discuss it with their friends.  I think this would be better than watching some nonsense show on TV by themselves and then not giving it a second though.  (Not that there’s anything wrong with that sometimes; I’m guilty of plopping in front of my TV last night and going brain dead while watching Rock of Love II) 

So I guess what it comes down to is that it’s not so much the content of the show, but what the show offers it’s audience:the chance to discuss their opinions and ideas with others.  I’m graduating in May and sometimes I wonder if I will miss college.  I think what I will miss the most is the “community.”  When I read books over the summer, it is a personal and isolated experience.  Most people I know haven’t read the same book so I don’t discuss it with anyone.  What I enjoy most about being an English major is going to class and having this discussion with everyone.  I think we would all be missing out if we didn’t have it.  So, I think anything that allows people this sense of comminity and common interests can be beneficial.

I think our class discussion helped me to understand The Crying of Lot 49 (note the underlining) a little better.  While reading it, I kept thinking that the whole thing was ridiculous.  Like we asked in class: why protest the mail system?  It seems like such a harmless system and there are other things in society worth acting out against. 

The more I’ve been thinking about it, though, I can understand why protesting the mail system could be worthwhile.  This may be a stretch, but I was thinking about the price of stamps these days.  This past Christmas my neighbor drove around to the people’s houses who he wanted to give Christmas cards to and put them in their mailboxes, rather than mailing them.  Finally I couldn’t help myself and I had to ask him why he did that.  He said that he couldn’t afford to mail his Christmas cards because stamps were too expensive this year.  That made me sad when he said that.  It kind of scared me though, too.  I’ve always thought of the mail almost as just one of our human rights; when we need to send something, we simply mail it.  What will happen if that becomes a privilege that only the wealthy can afford? (I know that’s extreme, but it’s just an example…)  This wasn’t just an isolated incident, either.  Over the holidays my Grandmother called me and complained that she only got half the amount of Christmas cards this year as she did last year.  She was pissed. 

Maybe it would be a good idea to have an alternative to the traditional mail system.   If stamp prices keep going up, it may be diffficult for some people to afford them.  Then what?  They will no longer be able to send mail?  In class, Louis made a comment about not really seeing the connection between protesting the mail and the Civil Rights movement because this was not really a public protest, as much of the Civil Rights protests were.  I agree; but I think silent/personal protests are still effective.  It only takes one person to start something.  For some reason I keep thinking about people who refuse to go to Starbucks.  Even though Starbucks is not really affected by these people not supporting them, it’s useful.  Even though I do go to Starbucks, I can understand why some people do not.  If enough people protested it, then it would make a difference.  Just because there are not enough to make a difference right now, doesn’t mean there never will be.  (Disclaimer: I’m not advocating for shutting down Starbucks, this is just an example.  Honestly, I’m indifferent to Starbucks and whether it remains a world superpower or not).   

I had the same reaction to Pynchon as many of you had, according to your blogs.  Throughout most of the text, I was confused, frustrated and sometimes discouraged.  I knew after reading the first sentence that this was going to a text that would probably be difficult to follow; “One summer afternoon Mrs Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, had been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million dollars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary” (1).  What?  I had to read that sentence three times before I felt comfortable enough to move onto the next one. 

The rest of the novel remained pretty confusing and I found myself re-reading several parts.  It reminded me of another book I read (or another book Kim made me read, haha); “Glamorama” by Bret Easton Ellis. (P.S. I don’t know how to underline so all title are going to be in quotes–don’t hate me).   I remember having anxiety while reading that book because I had no idea what was going on.  I dont’ know why, but when I read a book like that, and I don’t know what is really happening and what isn’t, it’s really upsetting.  It’s like the book has more power than me and I am unable to make sense of it.  I was pissed after I read that book becuase I thought, “What was the point?”  But for some reason, I find myself thinking about that book more than I care to.  Although “The Crying of Lot 49″ wasn’t as confusing as that, it was still easy to feel Oedipa’s confusion and fear about not know who to trust and what to believe.  Maybe that is the point; to make the reader feel the character’s anxiety.  It is particulary effective when Oedipa begins to question everything: “Either way, they’ll call it paranoia.  They.  Either you have stumbled indeed…onto a secret richness and concealed density of dream…Or you are hallucinating it.  Or a plot has been mounted against you…Or you are fantasying some such plot, in which case you are a nut, Oedipa, out of your skull” (140-141).  In the end, maybe we do not need to know what is the truth and what isn’t, but the point was to have the experience. 

In case anyone feels the need to learn more about “Glamorama,” here is a link to find it quickly on amazon. 

http://www.amazon.com/Glamorama-BRET-EASTON-ELLIS/dp/B0006Q1UJI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200944931&sr=8-1

Hello class.  This is my first blog and even though Kim said it would take something like 30 seconds to set up, I’ve been trying for about 30 minutes.  Crossing my fingers that this works. 

As I said in class, I wish I had a specialty which I could discuss and sound like an expert.  But, alas, I do not.  I like to read a lot of different things, but I am not as enthusiastic as Josh and do not think I could make it through an entire text book.  I’ve taken many different literature courses during my undergraduate and graduate time at Saint Rose so, like all of us, I’ve read a lot of different books.  In several of the classes I’ve taken, I’ve gotten really exctied because I liked the reading and thought I finally found my “specialty.”  For a semester I was in love with Asian American Lit, another semester I couldn’t live without Lit by Women, and yet another semester the Domestic Novel was written just for me.  However, when the semesters ended, I realized that it was nothing more than a fling, and I was ready for some new reading material.  I think part of my desire to be fully invested in one area/genre/author/etc. stems from a conversation I had with a professor my senior year of college.  When I told him I was going to grad school, he asked me what I was going for.  I said “English” and he said “Yeah, but what are you concentrating in?”  I had no idea what to say.  “Um, reading?”  I said, stupidly.  He looked at me like I was a dumbass.   

Luckily, I’ve come to terms with my fear of commitment to one specific type of literature.  Although I enjoy reading lots of different things, I tend to like, as I said in class, “drama.”  I liked Scott’s term “realistic fiction.”  I like to read books that have plots that could actually happen.  One of my favorite authors is Julia Alvarez. Her books always keep me interested, entertain me, make me think, and move me all at the same time.  But I am very open to other things as well; for example, I’m a devoted Harry Potter fan.  I think it depends on my mood and why I am reading. 

As for reading things on-line, I agree with the majority of the class.  I hate reading off the screen.  Also, I get annoyed because I cannot highlight things or write in the margins.  I sometimes feel like I’m not really reading it, since I am so distanced from it.  The one thing I do enjoy reading on line, though, is newspaper articles.  Maybe I shouldn’t admit this, but I don’t think I’ve ever bought a newspaper in my life.  When I sign on-line, aol is my homepage and the top five news stories always pop right up.  I usually cannot resist them and I have to read them before I check my mail.  So, reading on-line allows me to keep up with current events which I would otherwise not read about. 

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!