![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My outrage seems to have increased per letter as I typed that subject heading. I have just decreed a stop-motion on time turning forward, at least for a few weeks.
Novel class continues to progress well. Yesterday, they helped me wrestle a scene that worked in my head, but less so on paper and it was a really good critique, in addition to being something fixable. Not the premise or the writing, more the manipulation of scene and structure. Too much motion, too many forces and how nice is it to have to fix blocking and not intent?
It is M.'s turn to wait for the cable dude as we now have the shiny DVR, but aren't actually getting the feed that tells it what's on the channels so that we can try to record. It's so a case of all dressed up with no place to go, but the DVD player now works in the living room!! Yeah.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
somedaybitch mentioned her discomfort over a sweeping generalization (not just that it didn't apply to her, which I get, but the idea itself) and I've realized that generalizations (with the obvious caveat of to each his own and the exception proves the rule and all that) don't bother me terribly. And part of it is training - you train a social scientist, you train a lit critter and you've trained someone who has to learn how to both interpret theory and form it, which requires a level of generalization that a lot of people don't feel comfortable with. And what makes the theory interesting is to take it and see the multitude of variations that arise from it. My premise was that we consume media to reflect ourselves, which is probably not the way most people look at their media consumption, but I think a case can be made of it even if the consumer is, as somedaybitch explains, looking for media to take them outside of themselves, to give them what they, themselves are not. Because that's still a mirror. It's still a lens.
I also agree completely that the theory could be utter bollocks (and god I love writing that and not saying that because I so have the Western twang at the edge of my words and would sound both pretentious and foolish saying bollocks outloud. I do wonder why American English lacks the generalized explitives of both testicles and people who masturbae, whereas both British English and most other languages use those terms freely and openly. Saying 'balls' is probably the closest, but we don't use that much. Nuts might be a testicle related term, but we certainly wouldn't say, "Oh, testes!" And it makes me very, very sad that we have no equivalent to "wanker." And wow, do I just get lost in my own tangent.)
Back to the point, I do think we consume media to see something in ourselves, whether what we are or what we aren't or what we want to be. I think saying that it's just entertainment is both true and not the whole of it. Other thoughts? Why do you consume what you do? What do you consume these days that surprises you?
Novel class continues to progress well. Yesterday, they helped me wrestle a scene that worked in my head, but less so on paper and it was a really good critique, in addition to being something fixable. Not the premise or the writing, more the manipulation of scene and structure. Too much motion, too many forces and how nice is it to have to fix blocking and not intent?
It is M.'s turn to wait for the cable dude as we now have the shiny DVR, but aren't actually getting the feed that tells it what's on the channels so that we can try to record. It's so a case of all dressed up with no place to go, but the DVD player now works in the living room!! Yeah.
somedaybitch mentioned her discomfort over a sweeping generalization (not just that it didn't apply to her, which I get, but the idea itself) and I've realized that generalizations (with the obvious caveat of to each his own and the exception proves the rule and all that) don't bother me terribly. And part of it is training - you train a social scientist, you train a lit critter and you've trained someone who has to learn how to both interpret theory and form it, which requires a level of generalization that a lot of people don't feel comfortable with. And what makes the theory interesting is to take it and see the multitude of variations that arise from it. My premise was that we consume media to reflect ourselves, which is probably not the way most people look at their media consumption, but I think a case can be made of it even if the consumer is, as somedaybitch explains, looking for media to take them outside of themselves, to give them what they, themselves are not. Because that's still a mirror. It's still a lens.I also agree completely that the theory could be utter bollocks (and god I love writing that and not saying that because I so have the Western twang at the edge of my words and would sound both pretentious and foolish saying bollocks outloud. I do wonder why American English lacks the generalized explitives of both testicles and people who masturbae, whereas both British English and most other languages use those terms freely and openly. Saying 'balls' is probably the closest, but we don't use that much. Nuts might be a testicle related term, but we certainly wouldn't say, "Oh, testes!" And it makes me very, very sad that we have no equivalent to "wanker." And wow, do I just get lost in my own tangent.)
Back to the point, I do think we consume media to see something in ourselves, whether what we are or what we aren't or what we want to be. I think saying that it's just entertainment is both true and not the whole of it. Other thoughts? Why do you consume what you do? What do you consume these days that surprises you?
