For my mix-tape project, I compiled a series of tracks that were all themselves remixes of video game music from when my brother and I were younger. I'm thinking of making it into a surprise for him at Christmas. Nearly all the tracks came from a website devoted to remixing video-game music and distributing it over the web, www.ocremix.org. The high volume of work available on this site allowed me to pick and choose tracks from games we played together, tracks I knew he would recognize the sources for, and short enough tracks to hold his attention.
What creating the mix-tape helped teach me about the writing process is also one of the core philosophies surrounding the site: that the arrangement and rearrangement of ideas (or music) into coherent, whole arguments constitutes original work, even when the ideas (or sources) being arranged did not originate from you. Accordingly, although I made none of the musical pieces on the mix-tape myself, and even though anyone could obtain these songs the same way I did and stick them together on a CD, my own arrangement can be considered a piece of original work.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Cut-Ups of Cut-Ups
For a "cut-up" project, I used an article from the most easily available paper around here, the Onion. The article involved an interview by the AV Club. I may have gone overboard a bit on cutting it up, but the stitching-together of it almost makes sense.
Beginning, middle, funny to some sense. Bob Odenkirk a lot of that. It was an apple on TV? Punchline humor. Let us be in charge. Moments that make lines happen in peoAVC: Did you have any funny at the same time? Create a dead beat, then so polarizing? We don't need to act. A lot of awesome reached out to us, cackling at it all. It was a surprise, what are on our show, the strict parameters about Adult Swim, who suck because of how sin-element out there on what they're doing. Da rules, not a big set... that feel it's important singing, "it's funny." When you know. You can send message boards if then, on the show, we say, it happens to all other planets, work and not funny. Frank Black says it's meaningless, and it goes across a portion of people, "put ourselves on a pedestal of the public that are happy to be ridiculous or be something else," and if the show exists at all, not Johnny Knox- or something. So we're here, sitting up top and a really small percentage on our show.
Tension and release. Coming from an idea that Tom would be interested in being mean-spirited friend who loves Carol. You hear reaction is loved it or just didn't get it, because it's so brutal. We were warned by, I think, and in many other Guest movies, but the first bit she said, "Listen, there's this reaction against the so-principle, just setting up. Do your pathetic, sad people when we make a commercial." That 15-year-old kid. Where lots of weird child-man experiences on the internet, and this show, and maybe now it's paced and how it started looking like avoiding an actual fake personality.
Beginning, middle, funny to some sense. Bob Odenkirk a lot of that. It was an apple on TV? Punchline humor. Let us be in charge. Moments that make lines happen in peoAVC: Did you have any funny at the same time? Create a dead beat, then so polarizing? We don't need to act. A lot of awesome reached out to us, cackling at it all. It was a surprise, what are on our show, the strict parameters about Adult Swim, who suck because of how sin-element out there on what they're doing. Da rules, not a big set... that feel it's important singing, "it's funny." When you know. You can send message boards if then, on the show, we say, it happens to all other planets, work and not funny. Frank Black says it's meaningless, and it goes across a portion of people, "put ourselves on a pedestal of the public that are happy to be ridiculous or be something else," and if the show exists at all, not Johnny Knox- or something. So we're here, sitting up top and a really small percentage on our show.
Tension and release. Coming from an idea that Tom would be interested in being mean-spirited friend who loves Carol. You hear reaction is loved it or just didn't get it, because it's so brutal. We were warned by, I think, and in many other Guest movies, but the first bit she said, "Listen, there's this reaction against the so-principle, just setting up. Do your pathetic, sad people when we make a commercial." That 15-year-old kid. Where lots of weird child-man experiences on the internet, and this show, and maybe now it's paced and how it started looking like avoiding an actual fake personality.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Barthes and Miller
Now, for something a little topical to this week's discussion of Paul Miller's book, Rhythm Science.
Of course, phonetically, a topic sentence would seem to be quite topical indeed (if you don't believe me, sound them both out). Therefore, I offer you my main argument right off the bat: Miller's Rhythm Science bears striking resemblances to the arguments of Barthes, covered near the start of the semester.
It simply wouldn't be polite to let such a topic sentence stand without some further explanation and examples, however, and so I have taken the liberty of writing here a couple of the more obvious ones. Others are most likely present, but these will serve our purposes well enough.
For one, the most obvious similarities are in the distinctions drawn between the reality of language and the perceptions of language. The sign and the signified, claims Miller, blend together and form the comprehension of music as well as literature. And, like Barthes, Miller places the bulk of the importance upon our own perceptions of the medium, transforming music into statement and statements into music. Of course the material source of the mix exists as its own entity, argues Miller; the true art of the work lies in both the transformative work done and the interpretive reaction provoked from the audience.
The second type of resemblance between the two works is a more subtle statement, yet more ubiquitous. Barthes challenges the contemporary notion of the author, decrying the influence of the author's own experiences and influences upon the work, yet acknowledging the association of the author with the consequences for the work they produce. Similarly, Miller works towards the idea of a common knowledge of sounds, saying that there is no sound from his experience that could surprise his imagination at this point in his life. The creation of new works from the stuff of old authors that are not themselves beholden to their "original" sources is an affirmation of the Barthes concept of "dead" authorship. However, like the arguments of Barthes, this too flies in the face of current culture and law, as violators of copyright are hounded by the legal system and credit given mainly to the original sources.
Having made a few points, I come to the close of this post. However, feel free to make your own arguments, with whatever materials you wish. How you go about making your own arguments is simply up to you.
Of course, phonetically, a topic sentence would seem to be quite topical indeed (if you don't believe me, sound them both out). Therefore, I offer you my main argument right off the bat: Miller's Rhythm Science bears striking resemblances to the arguments of Barthes, covered near the start of the semester.
It simply wouldn't be polite to let such a topic sentence stand without some further explanation and examples, however, and so I have taken the liberty of writing here a couple of the more obvious ones. Others are most likely present, but these will serve our purposes well enough.
For one, the most obvious similarities are in the distinctions drawn between the reality of language and the perceptions of language. The sign and the signified, claims Miller, blend together and form the comprehension of music as well as literature. And, like Barthes, Miller places the bulk of the importance upon our own perceptions of the medium, transforming music into statement and statements into music. Of course the material source of the mix exists as its own entity, argues Miller; the true art of the work lies in both the transformative work done and the interpretive reaction provoked from the audience.
The second type of resemblance between the two works is a more subtle statement, yet more ubiquitous. Barthes challenges the contemporary notion of the author, decrying the influence of the author's own experiences and influences upon the work, yet acknowledging the association of the author with the consequences for the work they produce. Similarly, Miller works towards the idea of a common knowledge of sounds, saying that there is no sound from his experience that could surprise his imagination at this point in his life. The creation of new works from the stuff of old authors that are not themselves beholden to their "original" sources is an affirmation of the Barthes concept of "dead" authorship. However, like the arguments of Barthes, this too flies in the face of current culture and law, as violators of copyright are hounded by the legal system and credit given mainly to the original sources.
Having made a few points, I come to the close of this post. However, feel free to make your own arguments, with whatever materials you wish. How you go about making your own arguments is simply up to you.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Share and Share Alike
And now, for something not quite completely different, here's another work using classmates' images.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Dewey, Takem and Howe (Sampling Reflection)
This past weekend was essentially spent taking pictures, images and photographs not nailed down from the internet and combining them into visual expression. The results are found below.
The general argument, that a nasty side effect of stringent copyright law interpretation is plainly to keep large corporations in control of their respective industries, is accomplished much more easily (though quietly) in the first version of the project, in which uses images not truly considered "legitimate" for such use. Availability of a larger pool of images is the main cause for this. The use of a well-known image (you'll know it when you see it) makes a more acute impact on the viewer, despite the more subtle nature of the first cartoon in comparison with the second. With the second, I was forced to be both crude in artwork and blunt in argument, simply because of the restrictions placed on the range of available material. Thank goodness for the Creative Commons and their helpful search directories.
The added effectiveness brought on by the familiarity of that icon in the first image, as well as the photos from the "Think Different" Apple campaign, tends to raise new questions regarding the use of these images. If the pictures or icons are purposefully chosen for the audience's recognition of them, that would place the credit for the effectiveness of your work partially on the original creators and distibutors of those images. This, of course, you may wish to avoid, particularly under threat of copyright infringement suits. However, as that oft-mentioned artist using Campbell's soup can images seems to be telling us, what else have we grown to universally recognize that is not already a trademark or logo of some corporation? The very advertising campaigns designed to acquaint the general public with these icons has perhaps succeeded a little too well for comfort.
---
Image 1
Image 2
The general argument, that a nasty side effect of stringent copyright law interpretation is plainly to keep large corporations in control of their respective industries, is accomplished much more easily (though quietly) in the first version of the project, in which uses images not truly considered "legitimate" for such use. Availability of a larger pool of images is the main cause for this. The use of a well-known image (you'll know it when you see it) makes a more acute impact on the viewer, despite the more subtle nature of the first cartoon in comparison with the second. With the second, I was forced to be both crude in artwork and blunt in argument, simply because of the restrictions placed on the range of available material. Thank goodness for the Creative Commons and their helpful search directories.
The added effectiveness brought on by the familiarity of that icon in the first image, as well as the photos from the "Think Different" Apple campaign, tends to raise new questions regarding the use of these images. If the pictures or icons are purposefully chosen for the audience's recognition of them, that would place the credit for the effectiveness of your work partially on the original creators and distibutors of those images. This, of course, you may wish to avoid, particularly under threat of copyright infringement suits. However, as that oft-mentioned artist using Campbell's soup can images seems to be telling us, what else have we grown to universally recognize that is not already a trademark or logo of some corporation? The very advertising campaigns designed to acquaint the general public with these icons has perhaps succeeded a little too well for comfort.
---
Image 1
Image 2
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Backwards and Forwards
If there's one thing that we can do to make the effects of our past mistakes worse than they already are, it is to dwell upon them.
While reading Lessig's book and the chapter on the Eldred Case, I was struck by how hard the author has personally taken the loss of that case. He has given a significant section of that chapter over to mentally flogging himself for his "stupidity" and "stubbornness," and the story of the Eldred case is the only one in the whole book to fail to clearly represent a real example of a concrete truth about the framing of the copyright debate. If one were to seek out a moral to his sad story, one would only come away with the fact that the legal and political system of the country does not quite function as it should, something that is usually understood even by those without any direct experience with the court system. It seems that Lessig has been hoping to get this off his chest for quite some time, and one wonders if this were not the original impetus for writing this book.
Far better than beating one's self up over mistakes is to learn from them and refuse to repeat them. Fortunately, Lawrence Lessig eventually proves to have finally overcome his own bitterness about these errors, and the remainder of the book provides not only an optimistic account of the next steps to be taken (and currently being taken), but also a glimpse of future possibilities for solutions to the present copyright issue. The Creative Commons, open-source licensing, and proposed Eldred tax all seem designed to prove that progress is still being made at individual, corporate, and governmental levels, despite all the setbacks. It is still too early for anyone to tell for sure how all this will end, but I personally tend to think that we will manage to work out something in the end.
While reading Lessig's book and the chapter on the Eldred Case, I was struck by how hard the author has personally taken the loss of that case. He has given a significant section of that chapter over to mentally flogging himself for his "stupidity" and "stubbornness," and the story of the Eldred case is the only one in the whole book to fail to clearly represent a real example of a concrete truth about the framing of the copyright debate. If one were to seek out a moral to his sad story, one would only come away with the fact that the legal and political system of the country does not quite function as it should, something that is usually understood even by those without any direct experience with the court system. It seems that Lessig has been hoping to get this off his chest for quite some time, and one wonders if this were not the original impetus for writing this book.
Far better than beating one's self up over mistakes is to learn from them and refuse to repeat them. Fortunately, Lawrence Lessig eventually proves to have finally overcome his own bitterness about these errors, and the remainder of the book provides not only an optimistic account of the next steps to be taken (and currently being taken), but also a glimpse of future possibilities for solutions to the present copyright issue. The Creative Commons, open-source licensing, and proposed Eldred tax all seem designed to prove that progress is still being made at individual, corporate, and governmental levels, despite all the setbacks. It is still too early for anyone to tell for sure how all this will end, but I personally tend to think that we will manage to work out something in the end.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Piracy and Property
I have to say, I'm enjoying the writings of Lawrence Lessig a lot more than I thought I would. It is interesting to see a law professor clearly draw out the arguments on both sides of such issues, in clear contrast to the fuzzy and incoherent portrayals one can find on the internet whenever these topics pop up. The book is written with a strong narrative in mind, yet laden with interesting and illustrative stories, all conveyed with a simple yet intelligent use of English.
I'm a little interested in what solutions the author is working toward, and whether I'll find they resemble the things we have tried since its publication. For the moment though, I'm merely trying to keep a running track record of the history behind his stories. I find it amazing that I have never thought to look into the history behind copyright law and the trends in that history. For example, I remembered that copyright law was extended in the U.S. in the 1970's to cover works not formally published or reserved, yet I did not know that the monopoly-holders lobbied for the changes in order to exert more control over the market. I bet they were none too happy when the legislature balked them by imposing a limit on the term of the copyright.
I find myself hoping that the trend of courts, laws, and rights balancing themselves out in ways beneficial to the general public will continue to hold in the present, despite the problems with containing and regulating the internet itself.
I'm a little interested in what solutions the author is working toward, and whether I'll find they resemble the things we have tried since its publication. For the moment though, I'm merely trying to keep a running track record of the history behind his stories. I find it amazing that I have never thought to look into the history behind copyright law and the trends in that history. For example, I remembered that copyright law was extended in the U.S. in the 1970's to cover works not formally published or reserved, yet I did not know that the monopoly-holders lobbied for the changes in order to exert more control over the market. I bet they were none too happy when the legislature balked them by imposing a limit on the term of the copyright.
I find myself hoping that the trend of courts, laws, and rights balancing themselves out in ways beneficial to the general public will continue to hold in the present, despite the problems with containing and regulating the internet itself.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Five-Finger Discount (Plagiarism Reflection)
Now, it's time for some thoughts regarding this Plagiarism Experience.
I had a much better time with this essay than the ghostwriting assignment, at least in terms of effort and workload. I was lucky enough while browsing the web to come across an author online who decided to showcase on his public blog some work he had typed up for a college course some two to three hours before its due date in the early morning. All I could think was, "Source found!"
This work was my sole source for the plagiarized essay handed in, but several factors seem to have worked in my favor for the sake of avoiding detection. First, the topic chosen was a much-discussed one, and therefore web searches involving the terminology simply hit too much interference from the numerous papers and blog postings online. Second, while actual instances of plagiarism are often detected long after the fact, we as a class have a few days only. Third, and I am a bit ashamed to admit this, I plagiarized with much more effort than most students would have taken. The source's own citations were removed, the related information replaced with my own thoughts drawn from common knowledge, and the tone of the article changed slightly. In addition, every sentence taken from the source was heavily paraphrased, with synonyms replacing words and the structure of the sentences changed.
However, while the effort was easy to handle, the emotional response was not. I felt rather awful after finishing a solid 3-4 page paper I never researched or wrote fully, in a third of the time it would have taken me to write a full paper on my own power. Even if I do well at this, I'm not sure I could be proud of such an "ability." I'll be sure to come clean and further explain my plagiaristic efforts (as well as release my source) for Friday's post.
EDIT ON 10/18/07:
The source for my paper on the extremes of outsourcing was an actual essay on the blog "Tinkafoo." The link is here. I essentially paraphrased much of it, then removed the data from his text sources and added what I could find from the domain of common knowledge, and finally altered the conclusion a bit to make it more of an impassioned end to the paper's dire predictions.
I had a much better time with this essay than the ghostwriting assignment, at least in terms of effort and workload. I was lucky enough while browsing the web to come across an author online who decided to showcase on his public blog some work he had typed up for a college course some two to three hours before its due date in the early morning. All I could think was, "Source found!"
This work was my sole source for the plagiarized essay handed in, but several factors seem to have worked in my favor for the sake of avoiding detection. First, the topic chosen was a much-discussed one, and therefore web searches involving the terminology simply hit too much interference from the numerous papers and blog postings online. Second, while actual instances of plagiarism are often detected long after the fact, we as a class have a few days only. Third, and I am a bit ashamed to admit this, I plagiarized with much more effort than most students would have taken. The source's own citations were removed, the related information replaced with my own thoughts drawn from common knowledge, and the tone of the article changed slightly. In addition, every sentence taken from the source was heavily paraphrased, with synonyms replacing words and the structure of the sentences changed.
However, while the effort was easy to handle, the emotional response was not. I felt rather awful after finishing a solid 3-4 page paper I never researched or wrote fully, in a third of the time it would have taken me to write a full paper on my own power. Even if I do well at this, I'm not sure I could be proud of such an "ability." I'll be sure to come clean and further explain my plagiaristic efforts (as well as release my source) for Friday's post.
EDIT ON 10/18/07:
The source for my paper on the extremes of outsourcing was an actual essay on the blog "Tinkafoo." The link is here. I essentially paraphrased much of it, then removed the data from his text sources and added what I could find from the domain of common knowledge, and finally altered the conclusion a bit to make it more of an impassioned end to the paper's dire predictions.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Double Post Day! (Ghostwriting Reflection)
And welcome, to the second installment of the brand-spanking-new formal occasion, Double-Post Day! For those of you still confused, check the prior post for an explanation. To those of you still confused after that, you've wandered into the wrong classroom once again despite this being the sixth week of class, and I'm afraid the fun in this regular occurrence has rather worn off for the rest of us.
And now, on to the topic of the day, a reflection on the recent Ghostwriting Assignment.
This assignment turned out to be a bit more challenging than I had expected, primarily because trying to write an actual paper while coordinating meeting times with my roommate was a bit more work than a simple paper might take. Looking back now, I probably should have seen this coming. The easy and the unexpected part of the assignment turned out to be the attempt to match my style to my roommate's. We've since discovered that our two writing styles are ridiculously similar, making the work primarily a matter of removing my own "quirks" in the writing and adding in his.
Since then, I've discussed this with him, and we now believe that this similarity is due to the fact that we've had the same English, history, and writing teachers all through middle and high school, and we also tend to share certain things, like our majors and ideological leanings. This certainly was a departure from what must be the normal experience for ghostwriters; I can't imagine most of them fitting their employers' writing styles to a tee without any real effort. While this did not change our relationship with each other, it caused us to learn a few interesting things about ourselves as writers.
If the fellows from the Nature vs. Nurture debate were to have a talk with the two of us, we would have quite the story for them.
And now, on to the topic of the day, a reflection on the recent Ghostwriting Assignment.
This assignment turned out to be a bit more challenging than I had expected, primarily because trying to write an actual paper while coordinating meeting times with my roommate was a bit more work than a simple paper might take. Looking back now, I probably should have seen this coming. The easy and the unexpected part of the assignment turned out to be the attempt to match my style to my roommate's. We've since discovered that our two writing styles are ridiculously similar, making the work primarily a matter of removing my own "quirks" in the writing and adding in his.
Since then, I've discussed this with him, and we now believe that this similarity is due to the fact that we've had the same English, history, and writing teachers all through middle and high school, and we also tend to share certain things, like our majors and ideological leanings. This certainly was a departure from what must be the normal experience for ghostwriters; I can't imagine most of them fitting their employers' writing styles to a tee without any real effort. While this did not change our relationship with each other, it caused us to learn a few interesting things about ourselves as writers.
If the fellows from the Nature vs. Nurture debate were to have a talk with the two of us, we would have quite the story for them.
Double Post Day! (Plagiarism)
It's officially time for Double-Post Day, the new, trendy celebration of the slack off/catch up cycle. I may have missed a post solely due to illness, but that still counts! Therefore, in keeping with the tradition I just made up, there will be two posts today.
And now, it's time for some thoughts on plagiarism; namely, that plagiarism is very, very bad.
However, this simply won't do for a blog post, so let's extend that a bit by covering the side of reactions to academic student plagiarism not wholly developed in the readings thus far: Exactly what do the other students think of it?
There was quite a large group of kids at my high school attempting IB program courses (think of them as an international sort of AP program), myself included. There were enough of us, in fact, to fill several classes at once and develop into a sort of social community. When we caught wind of plagiarism on anything higher-level than a spelling worksheet, it was taken almost as a personal insult to the members of our group. That someone would get out of doing the very same work we were doing and receive the very credit we failed to obtain struck a very raw nerve in the lot of us. Accordingly, when a certain student who shall remain nameless found himself within reach of valedictorian status upon graduating, despite a long-documented (by students) history of plagiarism and academic cheating, we felt highly vindicated when, at the last minute, several IB course teachers inexplicably began to "lose" his plagiarised work and assess his (rather substandard) remaining work at a higher level of scrutiny than had previously been employed. What the student failed to realize was that although his peers could not punish him for his transgressions, the teachers belonged to the IB community just as much as the students and were both willing and able to hold him accountable for his misdeeds.
The student did not graduate in the top twenty of the class and is currently, we believe, busy cheating and being caught at a quite respectable ivy-league university far removed from Wisconsin.
And now, it's time for some thoughts on plagiarism; namely, that plagiarism is very, very bad.
However, this simply won't do for a blog post, so let's extend that a bit by covering the side of reactions to academic student plagiarism not wholly developed in the readings thus far: Exactly what do the other students think of it?
There was quite a large group of kids at my high school attempting IB program courses (think of them as an international sort of AP program), myself included. There were enough of us, in fact, to fill several classes at once and develop into a sort of social community. When we caught wind of plagiarism on anything higher-level than a spelling worksheet, it was taken almost as a personal insult to the members of our group. That someone would get out of doing the very same work we were doing and receive the very credit we failed to obtain struck a very raw nerve in the lot of us. Accordingly, when a certain student who shall remain nameless found himself within reach of valedictorian status upon graduating, despite a long-documented (by students) history of plagiarism and academic cheating, we felt highly vindicated when, at the last minute, several IB course teachers inexplicably began to "lose" his plagiarised work and assess his (rather substandard) remaining work at a higher level of scrutiny than had previously been employed. What the student failed to realize was that although his peers could not punish him for his transgressions, the teachers belonged to the IB community just as much as the students and were both willing and able to hold him accountable for his misdeeds.
The student did not graduate in the top twenty of the class and is currently, we believe, busy cheating and being caught at a quite respectable ivy-league university far removed from Wisconsin.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Keep it Simple, Sort of
I have some further thoughts regarding the recent article on Ghostwriting.
When faced with any topic wherein one may find a healthy (or unhealthy) amount of debate or controversy, I always prefer to start with proposing a small principle regarding the problem at the core of things, allow that to define my stance on any concern related to the issue, and finally use some creative interpretation to decide how to deal with the aftermath of following that principle. As applied to ghostwriting, my first principle shall be, "Whosoever is responsible for the actual writing of the book ought to receive the credit for it as the author." Simple to understand and difficult to entirely disagree with.
Now, however, is where the various concerns related to ghostwriting pop up and must be answered. For example, suppose that the actual author merely recorded interviews with the "credited" author and composed a narrative from the recordings. Was that work really sufficient enough to garner credit for the ghostwriter? I'm inclined to think so, especially given the precedent of journalistic awards going to the journalists, and not to those interviewed and quoted for their articles. As another example, who would become responsible for possible negative consequences regarding the work? The short answer is the (now fully-credited) ghostwriter, with the explanation being that the same person ought to assume both the positive and negative effects of the work.
Finally, we deal with questions regarding the actual implementation of such a thing. "People aren't going to want to read books about a celebrity instead of by that celebrity," moan the publishers. If people are only interested in what the celebrity is thinking, perhaps the marketing should reflect that the book contains their thoughts and opinions, rather than outright lying and claiming that they wrote the book themselves? Another problem is that ghostwriting is already both prevalent and often even accepted. There is unfortunately no easy answer for that problem, as the law often finds itself with its hands tied in such situations. It is always hard to make illegal something that many are already doing, and then hope to prosecute each offense. If you don't believe me, I suggest reading up on something called "Prohibition."
When faced with any topic wherein one may find a healthy (or unhealthy) amount of debate or controversy, I always prefer to start with proposing a small principle regarding the problem at the core of things, allow that to define my stance on any concern related to the issue, and finally use some creative interpretation to decide how to deal with the aftermath of following that principle. As applied to ghostwriting, my first principle shall be, "Whosoever is responsible for the actual writing of the book ought to receive the credit for it as the author." Simple to understand and difficult to entirely disagree with.
Now, however, is where the various concerns related to ghostwriting pop up and must be answered. For example, suppose that the actual author merely recorded interviews with the "credited" author and composed a narrative from the recordings. Was that work really sufficient enough to garner credit for the ghostwriter? I'm inclined to think so, especially given the precedent of journalistic awards going to the journalists, and not to those interviewed and quoted for their articles. As another example, who would become responsible for possible negative consequences regarding the work? The short answer is the (now fully-credited) ghostwriter, with the explanation being that the same person ought to assume both the positive and negative effects of the work.
Finally, we deal with questions regarding the actual implementation of such a thing. "People aren't going to want to read books about a celebrity instead of by that celebrity," moan the publishers. If people are only interested in what the celebrity is thinking, perhaps the marketing should reflect that the book contains their thoughts and opinions, rather than outright lying and claiming that they wrote the book themselves? Another problem is that ghostwriting is already both prevalent and often even accepted. There is unfortunately no easy answer for that problem, as the law often finds itself with its hands tied in such situations. It is always hard to make illegal something that many are already doing, and then hope to prosecute each offense. If you don't believe me, I suggest reading up on something called "Prohibition."
Thursday, September 20, 2007
White Noise
I've been thinking about a novel or movie to use for the upcoming paper, and I think I would greatly prefer to use one of the novels I have lying around. There are a few reasons why I generally prefer to analyze writing as opposed to movies, and for sake of argument I'd like to discuss white noise, or interference via detail..
Part of the problem is that movies often have little choice but to convey the entire scene to the viewers at once, while a novel-writer may choose to leave out details that they do not feel they need to specify. For example, suppose a scene takes between two people speaking to each other in a city park late in the night. The novel will likely describe the dialogue, some emotions, and perhaps a bit of the scenery for the sake of comprehending the atmosphere. If it is unimportant whether or not the moon shines brightly upon the two or not at all, whether the nearby park bench is made of wood or metal, or even what type of coats the characters are wearing, the novel can leave it out. A movie scene, however, cannot help but show you that the moon is illuminating the cheap wood-plastic bench upon which the two characters are sitting in their gray, 3-piece suits. The level of unnecessary detail provided can occasionally detract from the integrity of the scene.
This also tends to confine a movie to a specific interpretation, and while this can be remedied by occasionally doing a "remake" of a movie, often producers will prefer to work with more original material. This, I think, is one of the reasons that people so often are unsatisfied with a cinema rendition of their favorite novel. The view of the novel offered by the movie simply may not conform to the imagined version of the reader/viewer. In essence, it is a conversion of the novel as a text to the novel as a work.
Part of the problem is that movies often have little choice but to convey the entire scene to the viewers at once, while a novel-writer may choose to leave out details that they do not feel they need to specify. For example, suppose a scene takes between two people speaking to each other in a city park late in the night. The novel will likely describe the dialogue, some emotions, and perhaps a bit of the scenery for the sake of comprehending the atmosphere. If it is unimportant whether or not the moon shines brightly upon the two or not at all, whether the nearby park bench is made of wood or metal, or even what type of coats the characters are wearing, the novel can leave it out. A movie scene, however, cannot help but show you that the moon is illuminating the cheap wood-plastic bench upon which the two characters are sitting in their gray, 3-piece suits. The level of unnecessary detail provided can occasionally detract from the integrity of the scene.
This also tends to confine a movie to a specific interpretation, and while this can be remedied by occasionally doing a "remake" of a movie, often producers will prefer to work with more original material. This, I think, is one of the reasons that people so often are unsatisfied with a cinema rendition of their favorite novel. The view of the novel offered by the movie simply may not conform to the imagined version of the reader/viewer. In essence, it is a conversion of the novel as a text to the novel as a work.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Exclusion?
Upon finishing reading two short works of Roland Barthes earlier this week (linked here and here), and after hearing the complaints of others who, like myself, were continuously balked by the difficulty of reading the passages, I have decided that these two works offer a wonderful example of the principle of exclusion via language.
One recent example of this principle are the complaints that the SAT and ACT college preparatory examinations were biased and that the choice of language (well-articulated American English that you might find in a dictionary or published work) unfairly favored comprehension by (and therefore the scores of) white, middle or upper-class children, who had grown up speaking it, over the comprehension of others who, for one reason or another, had not.
Ignoring the loaded issues present in that debate, we awaken to the possibility that a work or writing could be written, either deliberately or accidentally, in such a way that only a select audience could hope to understand the passages very easily at all. This idea comes back to us with all the subtlety of a concrete barrier upon re-reading the works of Barthes.
The major complaints that I heard from the other students were that the language used was both extremely vague and very copious in amount, that the literary references were obscure and without notation, and that the good Mr. Barthes could have used a good tap or two of the spellcheck key, if not the full-on interference of an outside editor.
The feeling one gets is that the author of these works intended for the audience of readers to have an astonishing background in literature and language, as well as a deep familiarity and agreement with the topic of his discussion. There are not many other possible reasons for the extreme amount of vague words with even more vague and wordy explanations accompanying them. It is most puzzling, considering that being paid by the pound for one's writing has generally gone out of fashion.
The other concern is whether or not this style of writing was done purposefully, or with what intent. Did the author seek to exclude from his meditiations those readers not sufficiently advanced for his taste? Was this accidental, merely the author's natural tone, and if so, what horror must a typical spoken conversation with this man be? In the end, given the title of that first work of his, I must find it ironic that his writing style has contributed to so much discussion of an author that, supposedly, has entered "into his own death."
One recent example of this principle are the complaints that the SAT and ACT college preparatory examinations were biased and that the choice of language (well-articulated American English that you might find in a dictionary or published work) unfairly favored comprehension by (and therefore the scores of) white, middle or upper-class children, who had grown up speaking it, over the comprehension of others who, for one reason or another, had not.
Ignoring the loaded issues present in that debate, we awaken to the possibility that a work or writing could be written, either deliberately or accidentally, in such a way that only a select audience could hope to understand the passages very easily at all. This idea comes back to us with all the subtlety of a concrete barrier upon re-reading the works of Barthes.
The major complaints that I heard from the other students were that the language used was both extremely vague and very copious in amount, that the literary references were obscure and without notation, and that the good Mr. Barthes could have used a good tap or two of the spellcheck key, if not the full-on interference of an outside editor.
The feeling one gets is that the author of these works intended for the audience of readers to have an astonishing background in literature and language, as well as a deep familiarity and agreement with the topic of his discussion. There are not many other possible reasons for the extreme amount of vague words with even more vague and wordy explanations accompanying them. It is most puzzling, considering that being paid by the pound for one's writing has generally gone out of fashion.
The other concern is whether or not this style of writing was done purposefully, or with what intent. Did the author seek to exclude from his meditiations those readers not sufficiently advanced for his taste? Was this accidental, merely the author's natural tone, and if so, what horror must a typical spoken conversation with this man be? In the end, given the title of that first work of his, I must find it ironic that his writing style has contributed to so much discussion of an author that, supposedly, has entered "into his own death."
Friday, September 7, 2007
And Here We Are
Welcome to the new blog. Current population? Me. The emptiness is currently stretching for miles, but that will be remedied as posts are added and topics are explored.
The purpose for this particular weblog is to Provide For the Common Knowledge, Broaden the Discussion on Authorship and its Current Meaning, and more importantly, Provide the Mandatory Input. I'm not doing this for my health, you know?
So come on in, grab a chair (those will be added sometime later), and keep away from the humorist over in the corner, he bites.
The purpose for this particular weblog is to Provide For the Common Knowledge, Broaden the Discussion on Authorship and its Current Meaning, and more importantly, Provide the Mandatory Input. I'm not doing this for my health, you know?
So come on in, grab a chair (those will be added sometime later), and keep away from the humorist over in the corner, he bites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)