The Final Word

Reflecting on the semester, I have learned a great deal about the inner working of what we now deem new media.  More so, though, I've figured out how the way I chose to interact with these media can establish a new, online persona.  That is, I can determine the level of information others can gather about me in an anonymous manner.

The plus side of putting yourself online is the accessibility.  With the heightened social situation most present in college, it can be a phenomenal resource to let others know where you are coming from, my interests.  On the flip side, and what I consider to be a greater benefit, is the ability to learn about others.

True, it can become too much with the number of outlets people choose to engage in.  Take Twitter for example... I believe this quick update format to be a considerable advantage for those who have little time to keep in touch with close friends.  It is also a way for people to waste time relaying the minutia of life to the world, as if we all want to know what Tila Tequila was thinking after her house was broken into on Sunday.

Without a doubt, these advantages come at the downside of skewed authenticity.  We discussed the legitimacy of sources early on, but even a Facebook page can become an outlet for insincerity.  The ability to distance ourselves from how we wish others to view us is scary at times.  With the ability to create a completely fictitious persona, its hard to value these new sources of interpersonal connection.

Away from the social aspects of new media, the Internet's various outlets for intellectual discussion will surely stimulate greater access to various viewpoints.  As Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, says, "people will become not less but more aware of differing arguments as they become heavier Internet users."  We are at a time of enormous accessibility, and it is up to the users to provide thoughtful insight while carefully choosing sources to consider.

Overall, the floodgates are open.  There is now more out there than anyone could manage seeing through.  The only headway one can make is through directed search.  When I go online now, it is for a purpose.  Maybe I've learned that I don't find screen time to be all that stimulating, but I feel that having a specific objective cuts down the clutter of the net.  Using this tactic, the copious links, articles, opinions and even pop-ups become manageable.

Deeper truth, though, is that we have begun using the web as a social crutch.  If you want to know something about someone, you should ask, do not consult their profile.  I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people determining the lameness of using a Facebook message for romantic means.  That is just society becoming intimidated by itself.  It is too easy to keep the distance, but feel like you're making the effort.

No! I say.  The Internet has a place, and I'll be on the front lines trying to keep these boundaries intact.  For the rest, I wish you the best of luck finding personal balance between access and self restraint.

Sounding off,

BJ F

Image Sources: The Web, Floodgate

Are Interactive Films Possibile?

Or is it just a game?

This is one question James Milward asks in reviewing the Future of Visual Storytelling (is Interactive) panel. As a fellow filmmaker, I also wonder if it possible to "make a film that a viewer can play with and affect that actually feels enthralling, satisfying and exciting?" My opinion of interactive films is that they are stuck in the "choose your own adventure" era.

A perfect example is the Waking Up Hannah Dove Soap interactive video. This piece has a simple structure of Content-Decision-Content. The production is high quality, but the interaction is limited by a multiple choice story break that allows the viewer to "choose" what comes next. I think this is old media content on a new media platform.

Another example is the Secret Location mystery. The decision options are even fewer (Yes or No questions), but this mystery genre is organic to the choose your adventure format. Still, the story is barely altered by the "interactivity" of the viewer.

Len Manovich states in "The Myth of Interactivity" that old media presents a fixed order, whereas new media allows the viewer to "choose which elements to display or which paths to follow, thus generating a unique work." What is so unique about these interactive videos?

There exists an exhaustive number of options. In no way are you making your own video, but narrowing the content watched as you progress through the program. A different approach, and seemingly more interactive is the Samsung Anyfilms. Here, you can "create" your own stories by graphing plot, style, mood and content elements on a grid.

As this is pre-recorded in nature, these "unique" stories are little more than recutting of the material shot. While there are thousands of ways the tale can be told, the problem lies in the quality of product. It makes no sense. The "creation" process is convoluted (I'm not exactly sure what it means to place an underwear icon on a exclamation point to question mark vertical axis). And the end result is not a compelling mystery, but a meaningless barrage of sex/money/murder.

On one end of the interactive spectrum, there is a quaint narrative, which allows the least possible dictation of the story by the viewer. On the other end is the larger volume of options, which yield a confusing jumble of images and sounds. Common to both is that the material is all prerecorded, therefore true uniqueness is impossible. Every possible outcome of the interaction has been pre-determined except for one:

Will you buy our product? I don't believe advertising to be the proper propellant of this new film form. These companies are not trying to give the audience agency, but dictate consumerism instead. However, these explorations are not a total failure, as they invest the capital needed to explore the ways to expand the idea of interactive film.

I can only assume the final frontier to be a 3D dream-like simulation, where your thoughts become reality. This would make use of prosthetic memories for story guidance. I refer you to Total Recall for further insights.

Image Sources: SXSW,

Ira Glass Just Made My Day

Moments ago, one of my ambitions was crushed by Emmarie's post about the Ann Arbor news website. As mentioned in my first post, I intended to create AnnArborist.com, but was beat to the punch by the local newspaper. Should I fight for my dream? The credibility, man-power and financial scales all lean their way, so I think not.

This door is closed, but per cliche a new one has opened... or become more ajar to be more specific.

And who has come to rescue me from the sorrows of failure?

It's the smooth talkin', hip walkin', spectacle totin', 1.7 million listenership boastin' host of the team that brings This American Life to your cars, bars, homes, and phones, where ever your iPod roams. That's right people. Hailing from Baltimore, Maryland, the man who's words lit a fire under my @$$, Mr. Ira Glass.

In his YouTube video's on storytelling, Ira has shown me the light. Ira has shown me that there is success in failure. And so I now look back at this failure with pride. In a matter of minutes, finishing my second blog comment and moving on to links for this weeks class, I moved on from a dream crushed to realizing my true potential in doing what I truly love -- filmmaking.

Yes, I will use his advice on the two building blocks of storytelling (anecdotes and moments of reflection, or potatoes and vodka as we called them in class) to further edit my podcast. Yes, I will retain the images he presents of the difficulty in finding decent stories and the importance of killing one story to make a better story live. Specifically, I found the note that all mediums digress from the energy of the source and that we, as presenters/journalists/artists, must be ruthless to make it good, to be helpful in justifying the need to be inspired to post.

Most of all, I take his messages about the "good taste gap" to heart. I want to make films because I love films. I am inspired when I watch a great film (saw JCVD last night... WOW), yet throughout my filmmaking career I have felt disappointed with all of my projects. As I mentioned in class, I have yet to be fully satisfies by any of my work, but I now see this in proper perspective. Ira says that for the first few years, what you're making is not so good. The ambition is there, but the quality lacks. As someone with good taste, you can see that your work is crappy. Yet, this can be overcome.

While most quit when they find themselves failing again and again at what they want to be doing well, what they want to be inspiring others with, the best keep on keeping on. Ira explains that the only way to catch up and close the "gap" is do huge volumes of work. So, I will continue on making films until they meet my standards. Ira says that it takes a while to fight your way through it, but with time, "the work you're making will be as good as your ambitions."

Furthermore, he offers two great ways to make this happen. Around the 3 minute mark of the third video, Ira goes back to a terrible report he made 8 years into his career at NPR. Not only does this show me that the people who are great at what they do did not always operate in such a manner, but it presents the important lesson of revisiting old work to see how you can do it better. I can teach myself how to be better by seeing where I have come short in the past.

The second advice, which is something I struggle with is creating deadlines to force yourself to produce a greater volume. So, a plan of action is to make a movie every two weeks this summer to hone my skills as I near the end of my collegiate career. Even if I fail, I will succeed. As Thomas Edison once said in regards to trouble with inventing the incandescent light bulb, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Lastly, the pitfalls that Ira associates with storytelling relate to film well.

One: Be yourself. As he says, don't imitate someone on TV because they already exist and no one wants the Ted Koppel knock-off when they can get the real deal. Or, as I see it, just because I love Wes Anderson films I should not try to imitate him. Instead, his films can inspire me, but I must speak in my own voice.

Two: Be interested in other people and about the world. No one wants to listen to someone that only speaks about themselves. Ira suggests that you should be in the story as a personality, but focus on others as the main character.

So, in a meta-cognitive manner I think that by relating Ira's wise words, I have illuminated my own path. True, I may stumble and sometimes fall on my face, but understanding that everyone goes through this I can continue forward. Or, as Alfred says in Batman Begins, "Why do we fall, sir? So that we might learn to pick ourselves up."

Off the Cuff

The sky is blue. The trees are green. Birds are chirping the sweet song of... oh who am I kidding, I am terrible at writing creative prose. I have absolutely no propensity to sit down and write, so it's no wonder that when forced to do so for coursework, I utterly fail. I've known this for a long time, but I stand before you now, in an honest attempt to lift this cloak of mystery that surrounds the conjuring of ideas from thin air.

Ladies and gentlemen, for your viewing pleasure, may I present a never before seen look into my mind. Through a breakdown of my thought process, I will inevitably make excuses as to why I procrastinate whenever I am told to put words on paper. In some way, I hope to cure the plague that has delayed paper submissions as long as I can remember.

Remember, the act of recalling to mind by an effort of memory. What a wonderful place to begin. I can only imagine creating from the memories of past experiences. A sound I've enjoyed, a place I've been, the people I've known would all come to mind when I attempt to create anew. Well, they would if my memory worked a bit better.

Instead, trying to extract a specific fact from my noggin is a crapshoot. I have long thought of internal memory workings as a filing system. Each thought starts as a separate blank sheet of paper. Some get filed properly, others are thrown into the miscellaneous drawer due to lack of context, consideration of the thought's meaning, or pace at which new ideas are coming in.

I am often halted by the desire to remember an idea that has just passed. Typically, I lose my train of thought... like now. [Spent a few seconds dolling over where this post was going, then blam-o my thought vanished]. So, my memory is not so great. If I'm not mistaken, I believe I wanted to relate that back to the difficulty I find in writing unique details. Sure, I can write as I am watching things, but it takes me quite some time to come up with the perfect word. Delia had a name for my type - those who stop mid-sentence until the right word comes along - but guess where that name is now. No, do guess because I honestly can't... irker. That was it.

See how that works? Makes straight thinking difficult. Whereas a story starts at 1 and goes to 10, I may come up with 3 and 8 first, hoping the rest fills itself out. That is what you are reading right now. I think we're on 6, or I hope so.

Anyway, memory. Not only are personal experiences filed for future viewing, or losing, but the media that we encounter adds to the world of details we can pull from as writers. I'm talking about books I read when I was 12, the TV selling me things I don't need at the check-out counter, the radio programing between 7:06 and 7:21 on my way to high school, and the one movie I've walked out of.

Much class discussion has covered the rapid speed of information flying at us constantly, but I'm beginning to think that the source affects the ability to file. I have heard that to be a good writer, you must read. Since coming to college, my brain has been constantly pelted with course work. So much so that I have no time for pleasure reading. Yet, I find that I better remember what I choose to engage in, as opposed to course requirements.

Even now, I could discuss the characters in Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan, read over winter break, but that memory is constantly being pushed further back in the filing cabinet. This week it's podcasting, Total Recall as post-modern science fiction, the book of Joshua, psychogeographic marketing and 3 full days of filming. To say I'm overwhelmed is right on the nose.

Yet, I don't think that it's a personal matter of this time period or the stage of life that I am in. We, as a society, need to simplify, reprioritize. Most of the podcasts relate to technology overtaking our lives. How can we flourish if we are condemned to self-loathing?

So, to come to a point (and stop this rambling), I think that the increased stimuli have made me dismissive. Thereby my solution to becoming a better writer is slowing down, taking note and truly observing what I see. Even though this world seems hyper, I don't have to be. See this image to the right made up of complex circular vectors? I most enjoy the muted orange flower. That's my favorite color.

A personal break though? We'll see if I remember this tomorrow.

Image Source: Sky, Filing, Circles

A Fan is (Re)Born

Driving down Wilshire, to and from my LA-based summer internship, I had only one escape from the mounting aggravation of constant traffic and complete disregard for fellow human beings. I tuned out from the endless sea of cars, the desert heat, and the loudening sirens as I neared my Compton residence, and tune into NPR.

I've always been fond of the variety of reporting that comes from such an academic source and for an hour or two (or even three, depending on the number of shootings the night before) I scratched my intellectual curiosity, only to sniff despair in the air. Remember, this was the summer of economic peril, a heated presidential race, increasing unemployment, etc. I swear, I'd go to work hearing about how many brave soldiers died in Iraq and come home to how deep stocks have plummeted on Wall street on a daily basis.

And so, by summer's end I had my fill. I quit. NPR that is.

Now, I'm back. And it's all because of this man. Ira Glass's show has made me a believer, once more, in the ability of public radio to present engaging programming that reflects personal interests and current socioeconomic events. I find myself in awe of This American Life's ability to captivate and stimulate my imagination. When Mr. Glass and his barrage of contributors speak, I see vivid images of interesting subjects, unique backdrops and colorful themes that represent a kaleidoscope of cultural happenings in America.

So, I have taken it upon myself to delve deeper into my appreciation of such a wonderfully produced radio show, now finding a wider audience in Podcast form. First and foremost, I must say that I probably wouldn't plan to continue listening if it were not available anytime online. In fact, I don't have a radio at this point in my life and would hardly ever be able to sit down at the exact time when the show is broadcast, so the ability to time-shift is integral to my future appreciation of this fabulous storytelling stage.

Secondly, I believe I can chalk up the engaging nature of the show to two general arenas clearly encompassed in Mr. Glass's expertise: Structure and Language (including voice, sound and music). "Why include sound and music in language?" you may ask. Well, I feel that song choice, speaking voice and layered audio are integral to the focus captured by the beautiful words read aloud over the air waves (fiber optic cables just doesn't sound the same).

Structure has a great deal to the retain focus on an hour long piece. Just as the program can be taken out of its initial context and replayed, so too are many of the story elements used on This American Life. We are able to jump between parallel universes, constantly in motion, to coherently understand the story being told. This unique element plays especially well to set-up/pay-off situations of jokes, and the draw-out tension of anticipation and curiosity.

The several act structure of the show, clearly laid out in the introduction is a means for those without the time, or attention span, to break up their listening into convenient segments. Also, with time cues listed on the web page, a less appealing act can be skipped over, although this may lead to missing a part of the over-arching theme presented that week.

Combined, the time jumps and act structure pace the program in a way that an audience member can consider the implied messages and reflect on their relation to these subjects, directly or indirectly as it may be. To further enable this deep meditation on meaning, songs between segments are wisely used to bridge segments or instill a closing comment on the story just told through tonal, and lyrical implications. Genius.

Speaking of music, the Language of the show is what I find to most captivating. Whereas, the structure makes the endeavor of podcatching simple and engaging, language is truly what captivates me. As mentioned above, the quality of prose is top-notch on this program. Whether its the picture painting descriptions of a scene or the choice selection of soundbites from a story character, these devices are impeccably implemented to weave an authentic, emotional tale.

Not a moment is wasted, and not a word is out of place. Quotes are used as needed, but serve a greater purpose than delivering the line just right. Hearing a person's words in their own voice enables my ability to paint a picture of who they might be. What is going on in the background speaks to the setting of the interview, contextualizing their thought process and motivations. A perfect example of this, from the Plan B episode, is hearing the Cuervo Man encourage drinking in a New York bar. Without having to set up the atmosphere and the reception he received, I understood his uncanny ability to spread inebriated joy, a shot glass at a time.

And joy is what This American Life has brought to me now, and hopefully into the future. I have found a new outlet for my narrative needs and to my surprise, it needs no image for what the storytellers say, I can see.

Image source: Ira Glass, Time Shifts

Green is for GO

And Red is for STOP. 

As in, "Someone stop this website right away because it has terrible content, architecture and design." That's right, this is the "best of/worst of" post to exemplify extremes of what the internet can be. My favorite website and one I find frankly faulted.

It is often easier to critique, pointing out flaws, than it is to explain why something works.  When you see a bad movie, you say, "That story sucked," "The acting was unconvincing," "The camera shacking made me sick."  When you see a good movie, understanding the elements that lend cohesion to the experience is far less common than expressing a general opinion.  "Yeah, I thought it was fun/exciting/funny/scary."  And since the critique comes more naturally, that's where I'll begin.

To establish a constant, the two sites I'm evaluating are film news sites.  Ain't It Cool News and SlashFilm are two of the highest read sites for industry updates, and peripheral topics of visual entertainment discussion.  These sites could not be more different, though.

Most obviously, the visual design of AICN is comprised of nothing but text.  Headline after headline fills the page.  Furthermore, the front page is highly scroll intensive.  True, topics are broken down into organized categories, but the uninterrupted list of article topics is overwhelming and unappealing.

/Film takes on a far simpler and more appealing visual design.  The news stories (and the like) are presented in standard blog post format.  There are almost always interesting pictures to accompany each article.  Additionally, the post are short, typically with an option for further detail reading: "More after the Jump."  Obviously, this blog-style of information presentation leads to a great deal of scrolling, but the separation of articles, allows for focused interest on each subject right from the front page.

Also, appealing is the writing structure of /Film.  Short and sweet, their articles convey all necessary information and refer the reader to previous articles for deeper details.  I find their opinions on films to be similar to mine.  What separates them from other film sites, though, is the exuberance for the medium.  These writers display their love for film through the excitement with which they detail industry on-goings.

AICN, on the other hand, is far more wordy.  They often use much larger quotes, where /Film typically cuts it down to the applicable segments.  The headlines, for the obvious reason of being the only pull towards the article, are long-winded and annoyingly sarcastic.

This leads me to voice.  As mentioned above, I love /Film because of their informative and passionate tone.  They want everyone to know more about the films that they are interested in, and sometimes rag on those that are... lame.  AICN seems to be in the business for self-interest.  More than promoting the news, they are putting out their opinion on that story.

I can see how this voice might lend better towards the film discussion boards, led by fanboys who rip anything they slightly disprove of to shreds.  For me, though, the news is all I need and /Film is where I get it.

MAKE MOVIES IN MICHIGAN!

,

You say you have


And we've got


But you're forgetting all about

While we've got

Even better, we have

And they're all real. Unlike

Furthermore,
can do

So come film in Michigan. What's stopping you?

Did I mention we give back loads of

For information about the Michigan Tax Incentive visit the Michigan Film Office.
And for News about current film-related happenings in the state, check out Film Michigan.org

---

With first hand knowledge of both filmmaking in Los Angeles and Michigan, I found this visual argument relatively easy to compose. The sentiments here are personal and I have vested interest in the success of the Incentive Program. Where I found difficulty was in determining the proper depth of argument that could still be spoken visually, and more importantly (to the internet) succinctly. I chose the issues that have arisen most commonly when overhearing or participating in conversations relating to diversifying Michigan industries. Within a restricted format as the *FREE* Blogger, layout is limited, but I tried to emphasize the main points using larger image size and bold font. Formatting did become a problem when changing layout, as certain window sizes present the information in a strange separated way. The links at the end seemed natural, and I feel they add an air of authenticity to an otherwise amateur advertisement-like visual display.

Categorical Blog Evaluations = Bloring

While a discussion of academic blogs relates to my venture here more directly, there is nothing wrong with exploring the conventions used within other blog types. So, without further ado:


The Categorized Blogs

Political/News - Scholars and Rogues
Entertainment/Art - Click Opera
Lifestyle - The Sartorialist
Science/Technology - Bad Astronomy

Evaluation
One similarity between all these blogs is the use of dark text over white backdrop. This seems to be ever the more common in sites I visit. Reminiscent of Old Media texts, we are trained to read the dark signifier of meaning over the bright content venue. All but The Sartorialist make use of a header navigation bar, simplifying the meandering through the pages upon pages of original content. On to the specific conventions...

From the top down, S&R shares several traits with Old Media news texts. The writing style is journalistic, sticking to the facts and there is a limited use of images. The writing is informative, well-structured, clearly thought out and direct. There is limited link usage. What separated this blog from common News sources is the inclusion of viral videos, and a strange photography of nature section (see Rust). As a whole, the site is cluttered, with dense margins surrounding a compacted body section. Additionally, advertising, polls and internal linking detract from the content.

Click Opera is on the other end of the spectrum, with a minimalist approach. I found the right margin alignment to be refreshing and drew focus to the content itself. Per the notion of art, the site makes great use of images, even using images in argument (see "the anxious interval" time line). The textual content is far less defined, though, ranging from the personal sentiments to global persuasions. Such is art. So too is the credibility in the eye of the beholder. Who is to say who is an artist or what is art. Arguably, the blog itself is a piece of art, with the wood plank background and unique layout.

As mentioned above, The Sartorialist stands alone as the sole site considered which does not feature dark text of a light background. In fact, the blog has little text at all. It is simply composed of beautifully captured images of fashionably dressed individuals in front of blurry, uncommon, if not exceptional backgrounds. The use of image as argument is as unforgiving as the simple layout. In the highbrow vein of fashion, this blog makes the statements that these people are fashionable simply because they are. There is no description of clothing worn, common to such displays (see GQ slideshows), nor the people featured. All that is mentioned is the location of the shot by city and country. This site is truly bare, yet distinctively unreserved.

Lastly, I encounter Bad Astronomy, which acquires its credbility through operation under the Discover: Science, Technology and The Future banner. This blog is features conventions typical to general blogs. Personal tone, balance of text, image and video and a loose adherence to the suggested subject matter. The layout is not unusual, in that the left-most, largest column makes up the body fo the text with the narrower right column reserved for blog description, book plugging, internal linking and archives. Even though the subject can be dry at times, the cheeky tone keeps posts interesting and light.

A Final Note
I am finding that comments can make or break the success of a blog. So is true of these well read sites. Each contains comments unique to the subject matter. Namely, Click Opera comments contain thoughtful, sarcastic responses which sometimes make use of images as argument (first occurrence noted). S&R comments are few and brief, but often link to additional resources/information. The Sartorialist comment list is composed of frivolous admiration for the outfits, or a presumption about the mood of the model. And Bad Astronomy's comments range from the personal, to the scientific to the utterly unrelated.

What is to be learned from all of this? Essentially, if the tone, text structure and site layout all play into the subject matter, they benefit the desired credibility and worth oft he site. If there is unwarranted clutter or unexplainable stylistic decisions being made, readership may take the penance.

You're academic too?

According to dictionary.com, I am an academic. Indeed, I am a "student or teacher at a college or university." However, this loose use of the word diminishes the elitist image I once held it to. I say elitist in the best way, of course. I want my teachers to be the most learned in their field. That way I know I am receiving the greatest education possible, making the process of earning a degree all the more worth while.

This definition revision is saddening, though. I know (read live with) many students who study nothing more than our premium cable package. Yes, Dexter is a phenomenal meditation on the psyche of a homicidal detective and artful display of suspense, but where is the intellectual pretension in Spike TV's Ultimate Fighting Championship?

I believe academia should be held to a higher standard. Not only does consideration for such a title require advanced knowledge in the field of study, but continued pursuit of new information. Academics should have a constant desire to expand their understanding of a subject they find fascinating. And through teaching, this energy, this joy of learning will be passed on to eager and interested students.

So, with an incredibly high brow, I will look down upon other blogs and judge. What I am really doing is using specific criteria to gauge their supposedly academic presentation of thought to better tailor my efforts here. And the criteria are... [drum roll please]...

The Visual: Or Do I Know your Purpose at First Glance
Credibility and Voice AKA By whose authority?
Depth of Ideas and "Whatchu talkin bout, blogger?"
and finally... Who is your Readership and what do they do?

---

This guy was in luck. I know Bordwell, as I have read his articles on film theory time and again. If you don't know who he is, though, a quick glance to the upper right corner of his home page lays out the credentials: Jacques Ledoux Professor of Film Studies, Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison. He provides a personal email, as well as a link to curriculum vitae, listing more instances of publication than I can count. And with this credibility comes intense understanding and scrutiny of a plethora of cinema-related subjects. History. Theory. Form. Movements. Aesthetics. And it is all displayed in black text over a clean, white background. Links are used sparingly, mostly on the left and right wings for site navigation to different pages, highlighted articles, and his work in print. As in his "old media" writings, the use of images is directly related to textual subject, usually complimenting a scene description or exemplifying an aesthetic quality (mise-en-scene, etc.).

All academic-esque visual layout and clear sense of authority on the fairly specified subject aside, Bordwell's posts are incredibly long, often without a single comment. So, the last question remains: who is he writing for? Are his students his audience or other professors in the field?

---

Yep. You guessed it. That's Josep Colomer on the left and a quick look to the upper right corner of his blog lets you know that:

"I am a Professor in Political Science, elected member of the Academia Europaea and life-member of the American Political Science Association. I use this blog to interact with colleagues, former students and other people interested in the science of politics and political economy. All are welcome to use this resource."

As Professor Colomer states, his blog sticks to the subject of political science, in a fairly dry, yet knowledgeable way. What worked for Bordwell's visual (black text over white) makes Colomer's blog appear uninteresting. One feature of note is the use of keywords (similarly noted in bold and blue), which allows for fruitful page scanning. Unfortunately, the keywords are easily confused with links, thereby serving as a means of distraction.

Speaking of links... not much in that category. For a political blog with such poignant stances of hot issues, there are few sources. It is as if these ideas are generated just behind the eyes of that fellow pictured above. Any academic would know that no thought stands without the influence of historical and social experiences. Surely, Professor Colomer could have lead his readers to sources for more information.

Again, I say readers rather presumptively. The greatest number of comments was for a Christmas card, mostly taking the form of "Merry Christmas to you too. Best wishes, Some other Political Science Professor." Is it the black and white text that pushes readers away? Or do political scientists not comment on each other's blogs, but retort on their own blog instead?

---

Out of the Crooked Timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

So is titled the blog which I cannot copy the banner image from. Hmmm, maybe this one has a bit more knowledge of the inter-workings of the web. It should, with upwards of seventeen contributors, but in this wider array of voices lies the task of establishing credibility.

First, the visual: do I know your purpose at first glance. No, but it looks good. Again, the black text on white background, but Crooked Timber (CT) utilizes a black border and red links, making for a strong color pallet. So what is being discussed here? Well, everything.

Not everything, exactly, but a multitude of timely subjects (from economics to social issues) through a 'hip' academic eye. With a quick click on the contributor's names, a reader is taken to their personal blog. From there credentials can be hunted down. The short of the long is that these people all work at Universities and are well-informed enough to be spouting off their own opinions.

Lacking in Colomer's blog, CT links to additional information and references source material when need be. Another differentiating factor is readership, which appears to be high for CT. With dozens of meaningful comments for each post, this site exemplifies a point made by Andrew Sullivan: Readers are truly editors and contributors themselves, shedding light on new viewpoints and correcting mistakes.

As far as these three academic blogs, the choice is clear; CT takes the crown. Its aesthetically appealing, limiting the length of posts. I trust the voice of collective academics more than the limited opinion of a single professor. What they say has merit and people are listening and feeding back.

---

While these sites exemplify (to differing degrees) the sphere in which I want Blog-a-Blog to operate, there is no doubt that originality will prove most important to retaining readership. So, what should I take away from these academic evaluations and what is best kept separate?

While Crooked Timber is king, my sole authorship of this blog is a fundamental separation from what makes them successful. That said, they do not display any images and reading the site for an extended period of time makes the eyes tired.

I found little of Colomer's blog appealing, but his strict adherence to the suggested subject matter would definitely define his audience for appropriate communication.

Lastly, from Bordwell's blog I take away the clean visual composition of the web page, as well as the clearly defined subject matter (that is strictly adhered to) and careful interplay of images and text only when applicable. On the flip side, I believe that more concise posts will yield better readership. So from now on... one post, one point. [Scanning this post up and down] Well maybe not.

The Pilot

An aviator, navigating the sky.  A continual flame, ready for greater purpose.  Episode one, establishing characters, story, structure, style and tone.

Clearly, this 'pilot' post shares qualities with each of these definitions.  As I navigate the internet, hungry for New Media, I intend for this blog to serve a greater purpose than its mere existence.

Quoting The Economist, "A new blog is created every second of every day."  And that was back in 2006, so you can only imagine the rampant creation of new, personal, online journals today.  Quoting my high school chemistry teacher, "In the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter."  Not to devalue academic appraisal, but in the great scheme of this blog, I want my time spent in thought, and the commitment to a creative endeavor to mean something.  

And so, in my inaugural post, I present a glimpse of the big picture:

I will save the explanation for a later date, when the idea for a blog-driven site that covers local music, entertainment, politics and news is fully flushed out.  For now,  suffice it to say I borrowed the idea from The Gothamist Group, an incredibly helpful network of websites, perfect for the 20-something hipster, 30-something foodie, and 40-something community activist, alike.

To recoup:

1. Navigate through New Media, using the SWC 200 syllabus as a rubric.
   
2. Be more than an academic blog for academic's sake.
   
3. Establish character, story, structure, style and tone.
   

Character is easy.  Me, interacting with the New Media texts provided throughout the course and those tracked down for second helpings.  However, considering the ideas of veteran blogger Andrew Sullivan, in Why I Blog, the biggest character of all is audience.  He states that the readers keep a blog author, or blothor (no? blogger? ok.), in check better than any editor could.

"To the charges of inaccuracy and unprofessionalism, bloggers could point to the fierce, immediate scrutiny of their readers… They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate."

Within the realm of academic blogging, though, shouldn't ideas be flushed out to the fullest before commentors feast on the scraps?  Would a theorist leave any thought unfinished?  I doubt it.

That said, the immediacy of the blog, inherent in the digitally published form, and having come to be expected by the audience, does not lend towards complete arguments.  The position of the author is given weight, and the counter-position is often left to the reader.  Good blogging, according to Sullivan, can be attributed to “not just saying what you think when you think it… but also airing the alternative arguments.”

In airing founded personal opinion, a conversational tone lends best to the New Media vehicle.  David Winer, a blogging pioneer, described blog writing as raw, with unpolished authenticity (The Economist's It's the Links, Stupid).  So, where does the authority of an academic blog come from in a medium where anyone can say anything?  Must a writer display an advanced vocabulary or does the referencing of authorized texts pass along the license to be taken seriously?  Maybe readership is a way to quantify authority, but how would a new blog (such as this) come into good repute?

Sullivan claims that if an author has the self confidence to simply put their words out there, without overly considering the audience, the roughness will provide a "real" sense.

So this is what I have done.  And here we go...