September 2013

September 28, 2013

Why I Will Never Be a Vlogger

, , , , 0 Comments

– Or I Am Terrible at Video Projects –

I am a very visual writer. Description is my forte. It is easy for me to site down and visualize a scene – however, it is difficult for me to think in feasible camera shoots and scenes. 

This is incredibly frustrating, because when I am tasked with creating a video for a class, or simply for fun, I begin to picture a really awesome idea. For example, for the video I was producing in Scripting Woes, I had pictured a video in which the narrative synced up with an interesting walk around campus. But when I sat down to think about what I could feasibly shoot, I realized that I was going to have to go much simpler.

I don’t have the editing capacity, or the camera skills, or a mind for cutting a film together.

 

When I have to downsize an idea, usually the first iteration or so of that project is not…great. At least in my eyes. But there is a difference in movie making – you don’t really get drafts. Sure, we had to turn in a rough cut a week before the final was due, but, at that point, you basically have the idea down and people simply suggest what shots you need to film or music you need to get. We didn’t have time to redo the entire thing.

I get overambitious and end up with something that I feel is subpar compared to the ideas floating around in my head, because I don’t get my safety net of ‘first drafts can suck,’ and I lack the skills to a) write a decent script and b) film anything more complex than simple establishing shots/action shots. And I have to spread this video around – this subpar, simplistic, not all that great video. I know my inner critic is worse than reality, but I have to side with it in this case. I am terrified of other people seeing this – not because of the subject matter, which is pretty personal, but because I am worried about the quality as compared to everyone else’s video projects.

Clearly, a job as a story editor is not in my future.

September 26, 2013

City of S.H.I.E.L.D

, , , , , 0 Comments

– Or Rough Beginnings –

If there is one thing I have learned to accept about Joss Whedon shows this semester, it’s that the beginning is going to be a bit rough. Enter Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and Angel, both of which have lackluster series premieres.

Let’s start with the older series, Angel. The opener of the series, if you’ve been watch Buffy like I have, is frustrating as all hell. The show opens with Angel pretending to be drunk at a bar (though, through the acting, it seems more like he maybe high), and then fighting off two vampires who are attacking—-a skinny blonde girl. This is alright in and of itself, I think, but Doyle, a clairvoyant half-demon, then sets Angel on a path to connect with a person and save them. Who is this person? Tina, the skinny blonde waitress who is lost and alone in LA trying to be a movie star.

See a pattern here?

The entire episode is an exercise in showing that Angel can kick ass on his own, but also is still being a sad panda over his break up with Buffy. Did I say sad panda? I meant constant source of melancholy and ‘woe is me’ vibes. Going from a strong, well rounded Buffy to a rather bland Angel is a bit of a rough ride.

On top of these disappointments is the fact that the first episode must assume that no one in the audience has seen Buffy — even though most of the audience was probably drawn from Buffy. Thus, the entire episode feels like a walk down a very overused memory lane.

To be fair to Joss, he was now in charge of two shows, and co-wrote the episode with David Greenwalt. There may have been network pressures or requirements involved. Still, the episode ‘City Of…’ was lackluster and was not an encouraging introduction to a series I was not all that excited about watching.

Now, on to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D premiered this week and it was…underwhelming. Once again, the show suffered from ‘getting those out of the loop into the loop’ syndrome, but less so than Angel. In fact, I was surprised at the number of things that, if one hadn’t seen the Marvel Movies or read the comic books, Agents just assumed you could figure out. (Extremis was a very blatant case of this glossing over effect). The plot was okay – seemed very episodic, as is the style with Joss – but it wasn’t quite what I was expecting out of a Joss Whedon premiere.

I think what got me were the casting choices (this, of course, can be attributed to the Casting Director). The female characters except Badass Asian Lady (pardon my monikers, I am bad with names) suffered from a serious case of Same-Face, and the Generic Action Hero was just that…generic. Perhaps it it because the last Whedonverse show I had particular contact with was Firefly, but man, does this cast seem a bit low on diversity.

It was not all bad. I recognize, both as a Whedon fan and a writer, that starting something is immensely difficult. Writing the beginning to anything, be it a television series or a novel, is tough work. I don’t know if Joss just hasn’t figured out the balance of mystery and invitation yet, but he’s getting there – Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is no ‘City of…’ Angel. I’m willing to see how both these shows turn out – if the writing and the casting and the other production elements can come together into something great.

Let’s hope they do.

September 22, 2013

Mind the Tech

, , , , , 0 Comments

– Or How To Properly Acknowledge Your Tech –

“Once [technology] becomes ‘woven into the fabric of daily life’ every once-new technology seems natural, and therefore somehow ‘inevitable,’ and it becomes tough to imagine living in the world without it.”

-Jodi Shipka

We’re back, ladies and gents, to talking about technologies and how they impact writing. Specifically, I would like to focus on the fact that we don’t really ‘see’ the technologies we take for granted, and how lecture-like this post is sounding.

Let’s change that.

So, while struggling perusing through Jodi Shipka’s book, Toward a Composition Made Whole, I was struck by the above quote. Do we really not notice the technologies we use once they become common place? Certainly, it does become harder to imagine a world without, say, desktop computers. But how can we not be fully aware of the technology we use and how it limits or improves the way we work?

Shipka provides a compelling example to back this statement up: If you were to call one of your friends, you likely would simply describe the event as “I called up El and screamed about space for an hour” (well, maybe not that dramatic, but, hey). You would not sit down and list out the reasons that call was made possible. For example, you likely would not say, “Thanks to electricity, phone lines, cables, a dial tone, ring tones,a numbered key pad, etc., coupled with the fact that the person I was calling and I are both fluent in the English language…” and both have an appreciation for space and functional knowledge of it’s basic structure, as well as both being invested in space, I was able to call El and scream about space for an hour.

So, quite literally, you would gel over the fact that electricity and technologies that go into phones helped you accomplish a task. In that sense, I do believe that we have a tendency to forget about the role of technology in our day to day lives. I do think it’s important to realize this, and maybe spend some time thinking about how each technology we take for granted affect our ability to function in the world we live in. I also agree with Shipka’s observation that, were we to take the time to think about how we use technology, and how it affects not only our writing, but how our bodies are involved in our writing, it can help us imagine new ways of thinking about ‘texts.’

There is one thing I disagree with, however, and that is the idea that technology completely fades into the background. Now, I am speaking mostly about writing ‘tools’ – pens, paper, word processors, mobile devices – and not the things that power them, so perhaps my idea is a tad limited. But I feel as though I am constantly reminded of how technology influences my writing. When I write with pen and paper, I am always aware that my chosen tool is slower and less precise than my word processor. When working with Microsoft Word (and, therefore, procrastinating on the internet), I feel as if I can’t write anything and am wasting my time. Perhaps I do not notice the tool itself, but I do recognize it’s effects; I think everyone, in some way, recognizes the effects of a tools they use when producing texts. Or, perhaps, I am simply optimistic about the amount I think about the technology in my life in relation to how others think about their own tools.

September 19, 2013

Enter the Bad Ass

, , , , , , 0 Comments

– Or How Warped Has Our Image of Women Become –

As a writer, I pay a lot of attention to how people are portrayed in media. As a woman, I tend to also pay close attention to how women are portrayed because of how much of a Big Deal it is to me. Buffy, as a whole, does an excellent job of presenting characters that are human. They aren’t shamed, really, for who they are. Each character is well rounded and feels, you know, like an actual human being.

Buffy, in particular is fascinating to me because she is a ‘girly-girl’ – she’s into fashion, cheerleading, and boys – but the audience never once doubts that she is intelligent (just maybe not in a ‘public school’ sort of way), brave, strong, and empathetic. She was allowed to care about how she looked and also care about her physical strength. She is allowed to be caring and defensive and offensive and Bad Ass.

I wonder, sometimes, how girls in my generation would handle a character like Buffy today. I have seen arguments that would lead me to believe that, if they did not already associate Joss Whedon with feminist characters, they probably would not react well to Buffy.

There is this idea out there that a Strong Female Character must be Physically Strong, or Mentally Dominant, or Controlling. She must not care what anyone says about her, and must not care about others, except in a…leaderly way. She cannot be Motherly, Girly, or Conform to any Gender Norms.

But that’s a really limited definition of a ‘strong’ character, and perhaps strong isn’t the right word. In my opinion, Buffy is a strong female, but she is also a person. She has flaws and a personality that fluctuates as she tries to figure out who she is. She is simultaneously a typical teenager and a responsible adult in Band Candy. She is able to take charge and deal with Angel’s conflation of strength and cowardice (while crying, might I add) and she is not seen as weak. On the other end of the spectrum, we quite literally see two sides of Willow in Dopplegangland, and both, I would argue, are excellent representations of women. Yes, one Willow is Vampiric, and a little sadistic, but she’s still her own person, not a cardboard cutout side character.

Strong, I think, is the wrong word. Well-rounded is better, but that calls to mind ‘well adjusted’ for me. Buffy and Willow represent people to me – their personalities are malleable and they have flaws and they are not shamed for anything that they do. They suffer through the consequences of their actions, but they are never, ever, outright shamed. I think that is what makes Buffy and Willow great representations of women in the media; they were written, first, as people.

September 16, 2013

Scripting Woes

, , , 0 Comments

– Or Why I Have Never Taken To Script Writing –

Filming something is incredibly hard. Coming up with an idea and writing it out, complete with a visual component is possibly even worse.

I am a ‘visual’ writer by default – I thrive on description, which has a tendency to affect other aspects of my writing. My character development takes several drafts to get past the ‘shoddy’ phase, and my dialogue is…well, it’s getting better. So, one would think I would be an excellent script writer. I’m great with scenes! All the scenes, give ’em here.

Except not. My scenes – at least the way I envision them – are a bit….grandiose and hard to film on a handheld sort of budget. So, when preparing to shoot a short, 2 to 4 minutes film, I ran into some trouble.

Okay, a lot of trouble. I still don’t know how to shoot some of the shots I need, and I think I am probably going to need to come up with alternatives pretty quickly so that I don’t burn out/lose film quality. My storyboards were super ambitious, so I may need to face the music and re-storyboard.  I have at least four more ‘scenes’ to film on my own and then I will just have to see what I have and if it fits the mood of my script.

I am a bit overambitious, I have found, with large creative projects. Perhaps this is why I am almost never happy with my output. I simply need to ‘keep it simple’ {stupid} and relax on the ‘do all the things’ drive. But it’s so hard. I want this to be good. Really good. I’m afraid I’m going to flounder and screw something up.

Perhaps it’s time to start re-storyboarding, because the due date approches.

September 12, 2013

Intertextuality

, , 0 Comments

– Or Fandom and Separation Between Fans and Creators –

Fair Warning: This post is sort of Tangentially Related to an article called  I Know What You Did Last Summer: Sarah Michelle Gellar and Crossover Teen Stardom. I’m going to be talking about trends in fandom and also advertising. 

Many of these posts…say nothing about the fans’ preference for seeing stars, such as Gellar, on film versus television, and instead focus on the star as a text unto itself.

-Susan Murray, I Know What You Did Last Summer

In Murray’s essay, she examines how, using the popularity of Buffy, advertisers for films, television shows, and other products of the 1990’s and early 2000’s use the fame of an actor or actress to draw fans from one show to another, with the entry point being the star. The actress, in this case, Sarah Michelle Gellar, is the ‘entry text’ to a new series, item, or movies. I have experienced this advertising method many a time, as it is, in fact, how I rediscovered Whedon (I was on a Neil Patrick Harris kick at the time).

Something that I found interesting, was how the essay refers to Sarah Michelle Gellar as a ‘text’ – a way to read into new franchises, brands, and media, through a person’s physicality and attachment to a role on a television series. I tend to think of texts as…well, written objects, not entry points or, stranger still, people, that allow a person to connect a show, like Buffy, to a movie, like I Know What You Did Last Summer, to a brand like Maybelline.

Advertising normally feels like a shady business to me,  but using someone’s intertextuality, their connection to a single popular character to boost the ratings and/or profit margins of other companies and films seems extra shady to me. If they are doing what Murray suggests, and treating actors like ‘texts’ it seems to work. The girl, Katy, who Murray is using as an example in the quotes, has seen almost everything Gellar has been in (up until the point that post was written), but it seems…wrong. It seems like you lose sight of the person behind the character, and they just become an idol, a text of entry, a thing to be read into.

September 11, 2013

Writing Priorities

, , , , , 0 Comments

– Or Yet Another Excuse for Procrastination –

I have been thinking recently about how ‘new technologies’ – computers, tablets, cell phones, etc. – have affected my writing. The conclusion I have come to is this; computers and the like have made it so much easier and so much harder to sit down and write, and the difficulty of the task is directly tied to how interested I am in what I am writing.

As an example, over the summer, I wrote a 2000+ word essay on a pair of episodes in the podcast Welcome to Night Vale (if you venture off to read that, be warned; it is long and also has Spoilers). I was not required to write this essay – I just felt like it. ‘Incoherent Babbling’ was composed in about 2 hours, possibly 3 due to locating quotes.

By contrast, in freshman year I had to write a 500 – 750 word essay on the Scientific Revolution. That particular essay took me 4 hours to write.

I’m not proud of that, but it’s a good example of how inspiration or drive affects my ability to procrastinate. In the first example, I utilized the internet in order to locate quotes and discuss the topic with a few friends of mine. By contrast, in the latter example, I spent much of those 4 hours on Facebook, Tumblr, and YouTube, doing anything I could to avoid writing an essay that, frankly, bored me.

The problem lies when I am uninspired, but still need to write, like when I am working on a novel or a short story, and get distracted by videos of cats for three hours. New technologies have made it so much easier to do research for more creative pursuits, but they have also created the perfect procrastination tool. “One more Reddit post” or “Just one more video” are phrases I frequently tell myself when procrastinating, until I run out of time and have to do a rush job on whatever I am working on.

It’s a habit, and a bad one. But I am working on it.

September 5, 2013

Welcome to the Hell Mouth

, 0 Comments

– Or An Introduction to Storytelling in Buffy The Vampire Slayer –

Note: This journal post may not make much sense. I tried to connect thoughts as best I could. Apologies; E.  

However narrative is defined, they know it when they feel it.

– Jeremy Hsu, The Secrets of Storytelling

As Buffy the TV series develops, the precariousness of identity becomes ever more pronounced…not only are we introduced to the instability of peer group identities,…but also to the untrustworthiness of adult identities.

– Sue Turnbull, Who Am I? Who Are You?

If there is one thing I love about Buffy (though I haven’t seen every episode), it’s the characters, and how they interact with each other and the supernatural happenings of Sunnydale. What I loved about the first episode, however, was how hard Buffy seems to be fighting her identity.

We see identity explored in loads of teen dramas, but Buffy’s rebellion in the first episode to her position as the slayer is somewhat different. Yes, it’s different because of the supernatural lit to the show, but that’s not what I mean. Buffy’s exploration of self seems much more genuine, because of how much her destiny has ruined her life. Her exaggerated situation reflects the smaller, ‘normal’ teenage rebellions well; like a parent pressuring their child to become a doctor, Giles presses the slayer issue with Buffy. And she rebells. She refuses. There is something really realistic in that; her selfish refusal of her role mirrors one most teenagers know really well.

But, as Sue Turnbull points out in her article about identity in Buffy, it’s more than that. Joss Whedon created characters that, in an exaggerated way, reflect the issues teenagers wrestle with growing up. Realizing adults are not all powerful, and, most of the time, don’t know what they’re doing. The ever changing identity of friend groups. These things are real, and not fluffed up or padded during the writing, filming, or editing process. I’m sure there are things that got cut or added in to placate the studios, but Buffy is a dark, witty, and fully relevant show, even to teens today. I think that’s why I gravitate towards it so much – when the scripts is dark, the environment reflects that (music [ambient] that is too loud to make out the words in the Bronze, for instance). The viewer is not talked down to; Buffy’s rebellion is not looked at as unreasonable. Self-exploration and loss of identity are not trivialized.

I think that’s where the genuineness of Buffy shines – there are lots of other shows, according to Turnbull, that use the same formula that Buffy does. These shows include soap operas, who may just have identity crises to give new life to an old plot, and weekly shows, which deal with a new ‘badie’ every week. But Buffy puts a spin on both of these models – nothing done on the show feels forced. The plots arcs from episode to episode, and characters truly develop through identity crisis (whether individual or not). There are silly episodes and there are regrettable episodes (probably), but, overall, Buffy tries to bring you a version of reality you can relate to, and explore issues in. That, after all, is one of the more important definitions of story telling.

September 4, 2013

Technology

, , , , 0 Comments

– Or Thinking About What Multimodal Writing Means –

We need to consider what is at stake – who and what it is we empower and discount – when we use the term [technology] to mean primarily, or worse yet, only the newest computer technologies and not light switches, typewriters, eyeglasses, handwriting, or floor tiles as well.

– Jody Shipka, Toward a Composition Made Whole

It’s hard, I think, to think about technologies in a manner more complex than the computers we’re accustomed to using. Growing up, I remember being taught about ‘new technologies,’ but somewhere along the way, that term was shortened to ‘technology.’ I distinctly remember and instance in high school when a teacher made the radical statement that a desk was technology.

“No, it’s not,” said some, “it’s just a desk.”

Our teacher said that, at one point, people didn’t have desks to write on, and that a desk would have been just as revolutionary as a computer is to us. (Thinking about it now, I would say that the very act of writing was at one point new and is, by this loose definition, a technology as well.)

I try to think about multimodal writing more complexly than just ‘digital’ or ‘audio-visual’ writing projects, but after reading the introduction to Jody Shipka’s book Toward a Composition Made Whole (and talking to Dr. Warnick, my Writing and Digital Media professor), I realized that I wasn’t. Not really. I’ve talked in the past about how writing in other genres (for I will contend that video games and movies are, in fact, genres) requires thinking more complexly about what it means to write, I have never really considered how technologies (pen and paper, computers, apps, mobile devices, desks) and environments (classrooms, the out doors, and the sights and smells and noises involved in each) affect my writing. Is it easier for me to blog on a computer, and write novels by hand? How does writing on a computer affect my sense of ‘writer’s block’? What about where I work?

These are questions I hadn’t considered before, but I believe they are essential to thinking about how you prefer to write, and what we consider multimodal. Because, as Shipka states in her exploration of the topic, multimodal writing is so much more than simply digitizing our words.

September 3, 2013

An Explanation

, , 0 Comments

– Or Why Am I Here? –

Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, I had a blog called “What do I do With a BA in English,” and it was glorious. Granted, I was required to blog for the Honors program, but I legitimately enjoyed it. More recently, however, that blog is being required to be something it wasn’t supposed to be — a glorified inbox for seminar assignments. I firmly believe that blogging as an assignment sort of defeats the overall purpose of running a blog, so, here I am.

New title.

New layout.

Old tricks.

I will be using this blog to talk about writing, composition, video games, movies, and everything and anything else that catches my eye, because that is what I enjoy talking about. It is likely that I will also be relating most of it to one of my college courses this semester (Writing and Digital Media), in part because I must, but mostly because that class is exciting and new and freaking awesome.

So, welcome. I have been at this blogging thing for a while now. If you want to see a sampling, I’ve relocated my favorite posts from the old blog here. Have fun, and I’ll see you on the flip side.