Gah, There's is No Way IT CAN BE THE SECOND HALF OF AUGUST

[itsallovernow]

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.

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?

Comments

[eve11]

And it makes me very, very sad that we have no equivalent to "wanker."

Does "jerk" have the same connotations/meaning? It's probably a close equivalent. But much less fun to say than "wanker" :)

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

It may. Actually, that's interesting. I'm sure there's gotta be some linguistic tracing that could get us there:)

[vee-fic.livejournal.com]

All I can think of is a soda-jerk, the jokey way of referring to a soda fountain employee. That handle he's pulling on -- hmmmm.

Of course, once upon a time, it pretty much was a swear word to say, "Nuts!" Which is why it was so funny that was the response to Nazi requests for surrender at the Battle of the Bulge.

Lots of my bad words are male-genitals related in one way or another. Okay, half of them are Yiddish. But it's hilarious how many people don't know what shmuck means!

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Hee! Count me among them!! Tell, tell! What exactly is a schmuck?

[vee-fic.livejournal.com]

Shmuck is Yiddish for penis. So are putz, and shmeckel. Schwanzstucke is one you'll find used in Blazing Saddles (Mel Brooks peppers his writing wtih Yiddish), although shvanz/schwanz by itself is more common, I think.

http://www.bubbygram.com/yiddishglossary.htm
(This glossary uses traditional Yiddish spellings, so the "verklempt" that Mike Myers made famous is spelled "farklempt," and the SH-sound words will be spelled SH, not SCH.)

It continually amazes me how much Yiddish has entered general parlance, and how much of it people don't know is Yiddish!

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Yeah!! Thanks you:) A good friend of mine in college was continually using Yiddish words that I always suspected couldn't really be as polite as they sounded:) (The rest of his vocabulary certainly wasn't:)

This all confirms my theory that American English so needs more public-use words that refer to genitalia:) Although, I guess calling someone a dick comes pretty close. IT's unfortunate that it hass less of a negative connotation than calling someone a pussy. And I'll just stop now because really, who needs to have a conversation about the reinterpreation of sexual representation/sex organs as judgement calls.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

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 [info]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.

actually, what i said was that i consume media strictly for entertainment value, on a very surface level, and i have no other intent going into it. i flip, click, surf, until something triggers me to stop, on a very surface, superficial level. and then i said that what touches me deeply is typically things that are composed of ideas and perceptions that aren't mine, precisely because they aren't - which is not the same as i consume media to give me what i, myself am not.

again, i'm not disagreeing with your theory per se, in a way that means i think it can't possibly be valid because it so obviously can be - and is - but rather the sweeping generalization aspect of saying, "Obviously, we draw associations between characters and self. It's the whole reason we consume media of any kind." [emphasis mine.] it's the latter as an absolute irrevocably tied to the former - which is a legitimate observation certainly, but not in all people, always, in all cases.

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the correction on your stuff, because yeah, but then you also say that when you stop, when you pay attention it's because of typically things that are composed of ideas and perceptions that aren't mine, precisely because they aren't.

My arguement is that you take that in because it is a reflection (albeit a counter-reflection). You skip the other stuff because it isn't. (I'm really not trying to be argumentative about this, I promise and I totally acknowledge your point).

And nothing can be absolutely accurate to all people always, but I still think that on a variety of levels, the premise holds true. (It's also an entirely post-modern theory because it supposes the we take from media what we bring to it theory and it's one I subscribe to entirely).

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i'm not trying to be argumentative either, but i honestly think we're making different points.

you're saying your [everyone's] initial, purposeful intent to consume is SPECIFICALLY because of the seeking of self-reflections, and i'm not saying that.

i, personally have no such intent when i seek out media in any form, BUT, that when i do get touched by something deeply, it typically comes from media that doesn't reflect me back to me.

i don't in any way see us saying the same thing there. /cornfuzzled

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, I'm not saying that people say, "Okay, I'm going to watch/read/consume this product because I want to see what it says about me." I'd be hard pressed to think that very many people do this consciously.

I think that it happens on other levels.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, I'm not saying that people say, "Okay, I'm going to watch/read/consume this product because I want to see what it says about me." I'd be hard pressed to think that very many people do this consciously.

yes, exactly! which was why i was goin, huh?

I think that it happens on other levels.

it absolutely does. and i think books and music are probably where that happens most. [which then totally tracks with both what you were saying in general and the reaction you had to the book].

with a band you like, or an author you enjoy, there's an easier time of forming a not unreasonable assumption that the next thing produced by said band or author will be something that you like because it already appeals to you on either a conscious or subconscious level.

*that* would be a generalization i can get on board with.

also?

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

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.

i am *so* there with you, sister.

:::leaves you super-sekrit package filled with superhero powers:::

Re: also?

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Whoo hooo! Pulls out cape that superhero powers are wrapped in:) Runs around the office like a madwoman:)

Re: also?

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

:::is totally impressed:::