Since I'm sure no one is actually reading blog posts now that the semester is over, and most people are probably writing fervently to finish their blogs, I won't take much care with the words I use, grammar, speliing, or punctuation. I feel like I'm actually typing this for nobody, which is liberating.

Well, the other day, was reading a Newsweeks article about the internet. Now, I don't know statistics, and I can't remember if the article addressed this issue specifically, but I'm just guessing that if it's not already a more lucrative medium than television, it surely will be one day. In fact, I bet in our lifetimes, all television is broadcast through some sort of an "internet" connection.

in doing research for my thesis, i was looking at web psychology and how using this medium requires fundamentally different mental processes. consequently, people read material online differently than they would if it were in a book. they scan, generally. it's about breadth, more than depth. i was not able to use this material in my thesis work, but i thought it was interesting. here's the link.
the website's summary is itself very demonstrative of the principles it advocates, kind of like scott mccloud, with his don't-just-say-it-show-it kind of mentality.

So I've been kind of fascinated with the idea of post-postmodernism lately. I used to just blow it off, because the name was too meta for my taste. But it is actually a cool concept: a return to the unity fractured by postmodernism. The best, most succinct definition I found was "Age of Synthesis"[source 1].

This is different than flat-out modernism (which also claims to unify), because it is more aware of itself as a construction, "aware of its own failures, insubstantiality, and secondariness" [source 2]. Also different from the modern industrial notion of unity, the "Age of Synthesis" unity is more natural, traditional, and "lyrical"--a reaction to technological disillusionment.

“For within living structures defined by profit, by linear power, by institutional dehumanization, our feelings were not meant to survive.”
–Audre Lorde, “Poetry Is Not a Luxury”

I've been reading some feminists for my thesis, even though I've never really been into the whole feminism thing before. It's actually interesting stuff, when I can digest it at my own rate. It seems to me that feminists attribute the overly rational nature of the Western, capitalist world to the masculine forces that founded it.

In positing an alternative, less rigid social order, Lorde looks to poetry, which she associates with women: "At this point in time, I believe that women carry within ourselves the possibility for fusion of these two approaches so necessary to survival [ideas and feelings], and we come closest to this combination in our poetry" (37).

It seems that over the past few months, we’ve seen a string of celebrities and public figures being (pretty much) dragged out the closet by the media. From Lance Bass, to Neil Patrick Harris, to various members of the Republican party, it seems that people are being outed left and right (pun intended). Although the speculation comes out (god, I can’t stop with the puns) from different sources (i.e. Bill Maher’s comments on CNN), much of it seems to be fueled by internet gossip (i.e. Neil Patrick Harris being outed on Perez Hilton’s blog).

I find the whole thing to be really fascinating, and I also find that I have mixed feelings about it, and was left with more questions than answers. Although I will admit to deriving a sense of glee when homophobic Republicans are outed as gay themselves (and in turn as hypocrites), I also think that coming out is a very personal decision and shouldn’t be forced on someone. But then again, there is a need for more gay visibility in the public eye, but at what cost? It seems that with internet gossip, no aspect of a public figure’s private life is off limits. Is a total lack of privacy now hand in hand with celebrity in our culture? Should these people be forced out of the closet? As public figures, do they owe it to the queer community to be out? Also, why are all of the recently outed people males?

This is a crazy news story:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/17/britain.webrage.reut/index.html

It's Britain's first "web-rage" attack, blurring the line between the online world and the real world. If it weren't already clear enough that you can't contain either one within itself, here's more proof. Any thoughts on this?

I was having a conversation a while back with my favorite Media Studies-hating friend while we were watching television. We saw one of those many commercials that have begun springing up in which a brief part of a story is told or something and then the commercials ends with an encouragement to go visit the website for more of the story.

His conclusion was that this was pretty stupid. He had never followed those directions and was kind of offended that the company was making him do more of their work. If they wanted to advertise to him, they should do it on their time, not on his. Going to their website would just mean buying into their whole marketing scheme.

So, in section four of Hamlet on the Holodeck, Murray says:

“Meanwhile, the Internet is beginning to function as an alternate broadcasting system… as television channels and the World Wide Web come closer together, the telephone, computer, and cable industries are racing to deliver the new digital content to the end user faster and in greater quantities”(253).

I think that we’re definitely seeing the ways in which the Internet is influencing TV. I find that nearly all of my TV watching is on my computer and is facilitated by the internet, even when I’m at home for holidays and have more access to actual TV. While most TV on the internet is provided by users (such as the person who puts the latest episodes of America’s Next Top Model on YouTube. Thank you, whoever you are…), the TV broadcasting companies are getting in on the TV on the internet train too. Aside from iTunes, which has deals with several networks to sell episodes in the iTunes Music Store, some networks have their shows available for free on their websites. Two examples would be abc.com and the-n.com. ABC uses the tagline “Watch tonight on TV, watch tomorrow online”. The-N has a section of their website called “The Click” where viewers can watch full episodes of shows, as well as previews for upcoming shows, and “webisodes”(which are kind of like the gutter space between episodes). Although there are still commercials, there are far less than on real TV and they tend to be only at the beginning of the episode. It will be interesting to see if more companies follow suit, and what effect the corporate presence (and copyright laws) will have on the more user dominated forms.

I just put the topic title there for fun. Although this post is about House of leaves. Anyway, I was talking last week in my group about House of Leaves, and wondering how different it would have read if it was placed on the Internet instead of in a book. I know it was leaked onto the internet early, which gave it it's original cult following, and I wonder how different it was to read it then. Having hyperlinks to the different footnotes instead of the footnotes taking over the page, being able to directly link to words in the the index. Linking directly to the mother's letters. Would this greatly change the experience of reading the story? In my opinion, most definately.

One distinct thing about House of Leaves is that it was distributed in parts over the Internet before being officially published. I think this is an interesting concept to explore. Our professor, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, did the same thing with her book, and, if I remember correctly, she said that the experience was much better than having someone edit the book later. This is because more people can view it, because of its accessibility and the smaller size of the presented chunks (as opposed to the whole book), leading to more and varied feedback.

I find this idea of rough draft Internet postings to be particularly interesting in questions of authorship. Although there is one central author, readers participate in the book’s development, of course depending on how much the primary author takes their advice. I think also, that the author is more thoroughly conscious on what others will think of their writing. Does that detract from originality and encourage catering to others’ desires? And, by the way, what if someone else steals your ideas? I’m not sure. It would be an interesting experiment to publish our theses in that way…