1. Even when we have instances of multiple authors, a lot of times only one or two authors receive the attention and credit for the entire work. Why do you think this is?
I would have to assume it's because the authors that receive the attention are either more famous, or did more work. It's always about marketing and money.
2. I read a book over break called Letters to a Young Mathematician that talked a bit about who gets to be put on the list of authors for a given paper. Given that some papers involve lots of different specialists and maybe even hundreds of people contributing ideas, it can be very difficult to come up with a list just for practical purposes. Do you think we should list authors based on amount contributed, the importance of their ideas, or even based on who came up with the venture in the first place?
I would say they should be listed for everything you just stated, as all three of those things are important. I mean, I wouldn't want someone to be listed if the only thing they did was say "hey guys!" That just doesn't seem like any work at all.
3. While those citing a work may subconsciously only list the first author or so, they also do so for practical reasons. The goal of citations are to point those look for background and more information in the right direction, and a good way to do that is to describe the work from which the authors used. Might it be better to just list a title and other identifiable information rather than list only a few of the authors? It also might be more appropriate as information becomes much less bodiless in the sense that we don't think about the authors as much or care about them. (i.e. Wikipedia)
You are right --- we generally don't care about the authors unless they are noted in some way or another. I personally don't care who any of the authors are of the texts we've read recently, and in fact, I don't think I could even tell you who half of them are.
I like how most of the intertext is talking about the need to cooperate in order to get things done properly. I personally cannot stand working on projects with other people, and find it to be incredibly tiresome and boring to have to rely on someone else to get the work done. I would prefer to do it on my own, unless I absolutely trust them. Case in point, I recently got Resident Evil 5, a co-op game that can be played solo, but is easier with two players, and had both my roommate and my ex roommate play through about half of it with me. Now, while playing I didn't trust them to do anything and rightfully so, they pretty much failed miserably. I didn't really want to play with them, but since I thought they would be smarter than the AI (mistaken) that it would be easier to play with them. I went home for break, however, and played with my brother, who loves Resident Evil and is pretty damn good at it. I actually looked forward to that because I know I can trust him. Basically, what I'm saying is, unless you can explicitly trust someone you are working with, I would prefer not to work with them. That's why I dislike random pairings up (IE video project...) and all that jazz. I tend to do lesser work when I'm with someone that I am not interested in working with due to my lack of trust or lack of knowing them. I'd rather all the blame fall on me for failing than on someone I have no prior contact with.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
How do you feel about "co-authors"? There are definitely some great novels with two authors, one that comes to mind is Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's "Good Omens" but how do you decide who gets their name first, and if both authors are even going to be on the cover?
What is it about the internet and publishing things that is so appealing? Is it the anonymonity or is it the fact that you don't get censored? Furthermore, how do you feel about people reading your work that you post and then potentially stealing it, as it is just another 'anonymous' internet posting?
Do you prefer to work alone, or do you think collaborative work, be it on a project or a paper, is better?
What is it about the internet and publishing things that is so appealing? Is it the anonymonity or is it the fact that you don't get censored? Furthermore, how do you feel about people reading your work that you post and then potentially stealing it, as it is just another 'anonymous' internet posting?
Do you prefer to work alone, or do you think collaborative work, be it on a project or a paper, is better?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Observations?
I think I'm doing this right...
I was in vegas, I noticed that the more depressing of the casinos were the ones further north, as they were full of mostly locals, older people, and those that just looked incredibly unfortunate.
From the top of the Palms, most of the hotels look that same, just a bunch of lights and flashing.
The cards that they give out on the strip, for hookers? Yeah... That's gotta be the most depressing job I have ever seen, we tried to ask one of them a question about something else, and he didn't speak English, couldn't give us directions :(.
People that are playing slots are generally enthralled with the flashing lights and spinning numbers, I don't get it.
All the casinos are essentially the exact same, they just have different flashing lights and some different decor. But when you get down to it, all the tables and most of the stakes are similar, until you go to the high stakes rooms.
The clubs are full of attractive people -- why? Because I'm pretty sure people with money are more likely to be attractive as they have money to waste on things.
While booze in clubs in vegas is more expensive, it's generally worth it, the bartenders really know how to poor. Unlike Chicago, where you really do get one shot per drink.
Vegas is a prettier place during the day. Screw those flashy lights.
Stingrays are definitely different feeling than I expected, I totally thought they were going to be rough, but they were definitely slimy. Weird.
Why, in the springtime, did Vegas have to be just about warm enough to go to the pool for a little bit, but no longer?
Why did everyone go to Panama City Beach for spring break!? Isn't spring break a time to get away from all the people you know, not to go party with them in a different setting?
Flying while drunk at 7 in the morning is NOT fun.
Flying while drunk at 7 in the evening, however, is.
Hookers are more prominent in Vegas than I had actually thought, I know you see all those flyers, but I never expected to be accosted by one.
I'd rather drink than sleep while on vacation.
My friends would rather gamble on stupid things then hang out while on vacation.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Chicago is a scary place when you have no idea where you are and need to take a train and taxi to get back to the place you are staying --- at 4 in the morning.
Women AND men are fickle.
I was in vegas, I noticed that the more depressing of the casinos were the ones further north, as they were full of mostly locals, older people, and those that just looked incredibly unfortunate.
From the top of the Palms, most of the hotels look that same, just a bunch of lights and flashing.
The cards that they give out on the strip, for hookers? Yeah... That's gotta be the most depressing job I have ever seen, we tried to ask one of them a question about something else, and he didn't speak English, couldn't give us directions :(.
People that are playing slots are generally enthralled with the flashing lights and spinning numbers, I don't get it.
All the casinos are essentially the exact same, they just have different flashing lights and some different decor. But when you get down to it, all the tables and most of the stakes are similar, until you go to the high stakes rooms.
The clubs are full of attractive people -- why? Because I'm pretty sure people with money are more likely to be attractive as they have money to waste on things.
While booze in clubs in vegas is more expensive, it's generally worth it, the bartenders really know how to poor. Unlike Chicago, where you really do get one shot per drink.
Vegas is a prettier place during the day. Screw those flashy lights.
Stingrays are definitely different feeling than I expected, I totally thought they were going to be rough, but they were definitely slimy. Weird.
Why, in the springtime, did Vegas have to be just about warm enough to go to the pool for a little bit, but no longer?
Why did everyone go to Panama City Beach for spring break!? Isn't spring break a time to get away from all the people you know, not to go party with them in a different setting?
Flying while drunk at 7 in the morning is NOT fun.
Flying while drunk at 7 in the evening, however, is.
Hookers are more prominent in Vegas than I had actually thought, I know you see all those flyers, but I never expected to be accosted by one.
I'd rather drink than sleep while on vacation.
My friends would rather gamble on stupid things then hang out while on vacation.
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Chicago is a scary place when you have no idea where you are and need to take a train and taxi to get back to the place you are staying --- at 4 in the morning.
Women AND men are fickle.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Answers
1. Editing is everything. At least, that's what Hampe tells us when talking about documentaries. However, I wonder: do mediums exist that do no need any editing?
Everything needs editing, almost. Unless you are a fantastic orator, you will need editing. A novel needs editing, music needs editing, blah blah blah. Hell, I need editing for what I'm saying right here!
2. "The difference is that there is no feedback channel for the audience to test their impressions of the person." Basically, documentaries and many other types of media are one-way. In what different ways do we try to get around this obstacle?
Having write-in votes and competitions for the ends of tv shows, for who dies and who gets kicked off American Idol. Things of that nature. That, and video games, or choose your own adventure DVDs.
3. Hampe talked a lot about editing footage and showed in many ways how footage can be completely turned around depending on how one splices it together. How aware, do you think, are we of this sort of thing? Is our goal when taking in a new work of media to see what the author wanted or to question the "originality" of a work? Exactly how important is it for footage to be "real", and in what context?
I am fairly aware of this, but I highly doubt many others are actually aware about how much they are being manipulated. I think Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart do a good job of making fun of this by making sure that their faces are never seen during their interviews, and they could really be asking any question and just dubbing over what they originally asked. I think it is to see what the author wanted, at first, and then going into the originality, and it is definitely important for footage to be real, without real footage, how are we supposed to know what exactly is happening? Granted, most of the time our footage is edited so it doesn't ,matter.
Everything needs editing, almost. Unless you are a fantastic orator, you will need editing. A novel needs editing, music needs editing, blah blah blah. Hell, I need editing for what I'm saying right here!
2. "The difference is that there is no feedback channel for the audience to test their impressions of the person." Basically, documentaries and many other types of media are one-way. In what different ways do we try to get around this obstacle?
Having write-in votes and competitions for the ends of tv shows, for who dies and who gets kicked off American Idol. Things of that nature. That, and video games, or choose your own adventure DVDs.
3. Hampe talked a lot about editing footage and showed in many ways how footage can be completely turned around depending on how one splices it together. How aware, do you think, are we of this sort of thing? Is our goal when taking in a new work of media to see what the author wanted or to question the "originality" of a work? Exactly how important is it for footage to be "real", and in what context?
I am fairly aware of this, but I highly doubt many others are actually aware about how much they are being manipulated. I think Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart do a good job of making fun of this by making sure that their faces are never seen during their interviews, and they could really be asking any question and just dubbing over what they originally asked. I think it is to see what the author wanted, at first, and then going into the originality, and it is definitely important for footage to be real, without real footage, how are we supposed to know what exactly is happening? Granted, most of the time our footage is edited so it doesn't ,matter.
Week 9
Do you believe that it is more poignant to not run an interview, but to have the questions pre-scripted so that way your information comes off in a better manner, or do you think that this takes away from the process?
On that note, do you think that when an interview is pre-scripted, we get less information than we would if the interview was unscripted and spontaneous?
Do you prefer to actually hear the interviewers questions and see the interviewer, or do you think it's better just to edit the interview together so that it seems like the interviewee is just telling a story?
On that note, do you think that when an interview is pre-scripted, we get less information than we would if the interview was unscripted and spontaneous?
Do you prefer to actually hear the interviewers questions and see the interviewer, or do you think it's better just to edit the interview together so that it seems like the interviewee is just telling a story?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Creepy Roommate Story
Creepy Roommate Story
Here's my audio file, a story about a creepy roommate that I had to live with this semester, or at least for the first month. I went through a few iterations of what I wanted to do, first I wanted to do a comedy style thing, then I wanted to read a play I wrote for another class, but eventually ended up settling on re-telling this story. This was about the 10th time I told the story, and as I was getting to the 4 minute mark, realized I had quite a bit left to tell, so I had to alter exactly what I was saying and fit the rest of the story into the remaining minute. Of course, then it became rushed and all that, but I had already cut out a giant portion of the story and I figured the last part wasn't nearly as important the rest of the story, though clearly it was the most climatic. I preserved most of my pauses and my "umms" as I felt like it added to the story. I mean, I am trying to be a story teller, as I am a rhetoric major, so I figured that if I am a writer, I need to be able to tell stories out loud as well. I know, I know, we were supposed to make use of audio editing, but you also said we could record whatever we wanted so I wanted to recreate the story that I had told so many times before to all my friends who consider it incredibly creepy, the pauses I left in were ones that I left in during the times when I was telling the story, as those are times when people would gasp or ask a question or say something like “oh my god, are you serious?” I used Adobe Audition for this project, an entertaining little program that is actually an Adobe branded version of Cool Edit Pro, a program I had used for a few years prior to using this. Unfortunately, I am terrible at audio and I don’t really know what sounds good with music, so I neglected to add sounds and things like that. I’m pretty much the opposite of what someone would call an audiophile, caring very little for music or things of that nature, which pretty much alienates me from most of the ‘normal’ people.
Yes, it’s weird not to listen to music, and I guess it is kind of weird not to want to add sound effects, but again, if I am just going to be telling a straight up story using words, I didn’t think that it was entirely appropriate to add “NEWS BULLETIN” esque sounds. Now, my story is 100% true, nothing is made up, the names are all correct, and things like that. I didn’t work from a script, but I’ll make a transcript for it. The reason I didn’t work from a script is, like I said, because I’ve told the story so many times before I didn’t think it necessary to do so. I find scripts incredibly rigid, though I probably would have just ignored most of what was written and added my own quips to what I had already written (which would likely have already been filled to the brim with quips so therefore it would have been doubly ludicrous.) All in all, I think it came out sounding alright, and it was simple enough to record and do the very little bit of editing that I did to make it sound “better.”
Here's my audio file, a story about a creepy roommate that I had to live with this semester, or at least for the first month. I went through a few iterations of what I wanted to do, first I wanted to do a comedy style thing, then I wanted to read a play I wrote for another class, but eventually ended up settling on re-telling this story. This was about the 10th time I told the story, and as I was getting to the 4 minute mark, realized I had quite a bit left to tell, so I had to alter exactly what I was saying and fit the rest of the story into the remaining minute. Of course, then it became rushed and all that, but I had already cut out a giant portion of the story and I figured the last part wasn't nearly as important the rest of the story, though clearly it was the most climatic. I preserved most of my pauses and my "umms" as I felt like it added to the story. I mean, I am trying to be a story teller, as I am a rhetoric major, so I figured that if I am a writer, I need to be able to tell stories out loud as well. I know, I know, we were supposed to make use of audio editing, but you also said we could record whatever we wanted so I wanted to recreate the story that I had told so many times before to all my friends who consider it incredibly creepy, the pauses I left in were ones that I left in during the times when I was telling the story, as those are times when people would gasp or ask a question or say something like “oh my god, are you serious?” I used Adobe Audition for this project, an entertaining little program that is actually an Adobe branded version of Cool Edit Pro, a program I had used for a few years prior to using this. Unfortunately, I am terrible at audio and I don’t really know what sounds good with music, so I neglected to add sounds and things like that. I’m pretty much the opposite of what someone would call an audiophile, caring very little for music or things of that nature, which pretty much alienates me from most of the ‘normal’ people.
Yes, it’s weird not to listen to music, and I guess it is kind of weird not to want to add sound effects, but again, if I am just going to be telling a straight up story using words, I didn’t think that it was entirely appropriate to add “NEWS BULLETIN” esque sounds. Now, my story is 100% true, nothing is made up, the names are all correct, and things like that. I didn’t work from a script, but I’ll make a transcript for it. The reason I didn’t work from a script is, like I said, because I’ve told the story so many times before I didn’t think it necessary to do so. I find scripts incredibly rigid, though I probably would have just ignored most of what was written and added my own quips to what I had already written (which would likely have already been filled to the brim with quips so therefore it would have been doubly ludicrous.) All in all, I think it came out sounding alright, and it was simple enough to record and do the very little bit of editing that I did to make it sound “better.”
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
While our photographs are amature shots, what sets these photos that look amature apart from you and I?
Personally, I don't find much of a difference between amateur photo's like that and professional. Sure, some people may have stylistic differences, but hey, a photo is a photo in the end. It all just comes down to personal preference.
Would a ficticious documentary be much different or would the same rules apply as a non-fiction one?
Ever seen "Waiting for Guffman"? Hilarious fictitious documentary, and I've seen a few other films like that, just can't think of any names off the top of my head. No rules apply when it comes to fiction, but there should be at least some artistic integrity when it comes to non-fiction documentaries.
It seems as if the author was saying that you do not have to script out what people are saying, simply let them say what they want and get the excitement in their voice, etc. and then later you can make it into what you want to make it. Do you think it is possible for the documentary maker to be completely unobjectionable?
Of course it isn't. They set out to make one specific documentary about something, and by god, they are going to do what they set out to do, be it to bad mouth President Bush by editing out everything good that was said about them, or by not even using the interviews that praised him. It's all whatever the filmmaker wants.
Personally, I don't find much of a difference between amateur photo's like that and professional. Sure, some people may have stylistic differences, but hey, a photo is a photo in the end. It all just comes down to personal preference.
Would a ficticious documentary be much different or would the same rules apply as a non-fiction one?
Ever seen "Waiting for Guffman"? Hilarious fictitious documentary, and I've seen a few other films like that, just can't think of any names off the top of my head. No rules apply when it comes to fiction, but there should be at least some artistic integrity when it comes to non-fiction documentaries.
It seems as if the author was saying that you do not have to script out what people are saying, simply let them say what they want and get the excitement in their voice, etc. and then later you can make it into what you want to make it. Do you think it is possible for the documentary maker to be completely unobjectionable?
Of course it isn't. They set out to make one specific documentary about something, and by god, they are going to do what they set out to do, be it to bad mouth President Bush by editing out everything good that was said about them, or by not even using the interviews that praised him. It's all whatever the filmmaker wants.
Week Eight
While we've all heard of Michael Moore, and how he bends the truth to get what he wants, how do you feel about the use of interviews and splicing to get exactly what story you want from a documentary?
What do you think about not using any interviews at all for a documentary, like Hampe was speaking about, and just doing what you can with whatever footage you may have?
Would you rather have a high definition documentary, A LA Planet Earth, or something with Grainy footage? (yes, I know this is a leading question, but hey, what can I say?)
What do you think about not using any interviews at all for a documentary, like Hampe was speaking about, and just doing what you can with whatever footage you may have?
Would you rather have a high definition documentary, A LA Planet Earth, or something with Grainy footage? (yes, I know this is a leading question, but hey, what can I say?)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
3/3 Answers
Posted by Will:
In her article, Shipka supports Wysocki’s claim students should be composing text “using a wide and alertly chosen range of materials…” In your opinion, should English professors, for instance, also explore this idea or is this concept better suited for multimedia productions?
I personally think this is better suited for multimedia productions, unless the course is based on thinking outside of the box. I know many english majors that have quite a bit of trouble coming up with things outside of the box or really on the spot, they are meticulous and plan everything out before hand. I personally would like to do random stuff, but I know many other english majors would balk at the idea.
What are some advantages and limitations associated with producing your narrative in an audio format?
You sound awesome, and you can muck around with things. Or you could potentially sound terrible and not say anything interesting. Depends on how well you are at voicing your opinions and how confident you may or may not be.
How will this project inform/influence/impact your scripting of the narrative?
It won't. I'm just going to come up with something completely ludicrous and off the wall anyway.
In her article, Shipka supports Wysocki’s claim students should be composing text “using a wide and alertly chosen range of materials…” In your opinion, should English professors, for instance, also explore this idea or is this concept better suited for multimedia productions?
I personally think this is better suited for multimedia productions, unless the course is based on thinking outside of the box. I know many english majors that have quite a bit of trouble coming up with things outside of the box or really on the spot, they are meticulous and plan everything out before hand. I personally would like to do random stuff, but I know many other english majors would balk at the idea.
What are some advantages and limitations associated with producing your narrative in an audio format?
You sound awesome, and you can muck around with things. Or you could potentially sound terrible and not say anything interesting. Depends on how well you are at voicing your opinions and how confident you may or may not be.
How will this project inform/influence/impact your scripting of the narrative?
It won't. I'm just going to come up with something completely ludicrous and off the wall anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)