doctoral candidate in rhetoric and scientific and technical communication
cultural & textual studies
no name
03 years ago
I was on Netflix, cruising around, browsing for new DVDs to add to my queue, when I came across the blurb for the movie Bubble. I tend to like quirky, off-beat, independent type films. Then I noticed that this film is by Steven Soderbergh. Not necessarily in the so-called indie genre then. But it has that kind of a feel. I read a bit further.
Set in a crumbling Ohio town that revolves around the local doll factory, Steven Soderbergh’s offbeat film follows the antics of townsfolk turned detectives who try to unravel a murder mystery — and end up discovering a bizarre love triangle. In sharp contrast to his high-budget Ocean’s Eleven remake, Soderbergh uses low-cost digital camerawork and employs no-name actors in this quirky small-town drama.
Of course I’ve heard the term “no-name” used before to indicate someone who is not famous, who does not have a specific box office draw. However, it really bothered me. I started to really think about it, maybe even obsess over it a little.
How do the actors, Dustin James Ashley, Katherine Beaumier, Joyce Brookhart, Ross Clegg, Decker Moody, Leonora K. Hornbeck, Debbie Doebereiner, Misty Dawn Wilkins, K. Smith, and Daniel R. Christian like being called “no-name?” Beyond that, do they see themselves as “no-names?” Isn’t the fact that they have these names a direct conflict with the whole notion of being a “no-name?”
Is it belittling or disparaging to say that someone is a no-name? Don’t we remove some of their identity when we do this?
I wasn’t sure if this was the studio’s official release or not, so I went to the official movie site. It doesn’t actually say anything and the only link that works directed me to Best Buy where I could buy the movie. They write
Steven Soderbergh followed up his slick, star-studded sequel, Ocean’s Twelve, with Bubble, a small-town drama about workers in a doll factory, played by a cast of unknowns.
A cast of unknowns seems to be a better choice than no-names because it’s probably closer to the truth (although unknown is tricky, too, isn’t it? I mean, who are they unknown to? Certainly not family, friends, agents, managers, one another, etc.).
Ok. They are both discouraging terms when describing the cast. They seem like dirty words in some way. Isn’t there something better? Ingenue? A cast of talented actors? Why do they have to point this out at all? Is it because Soderbergh is known for his big blockbuster movies with casts of well-known actors like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and others? The writers are making not-so-subtle comparisons, and I don’t see the point. The targeted audiences for the two films seem to be very different. The styles of the movies are different. If you’re going to compare the types of casts (especially when the audience of Bubble would probably not care who is in the movie), then it seems like a pointless waste of valuable blurb real estate.
It’s almost as if the writers of these blurbs were thinking of a way to sell this movie to an Ocean’s Twelve audience, trying to pull them in, without really thinking about the audience, a more indie-oriented audience, they could have. It’s ok to appeal to various audiences. But it’s not effective to do it in a way that divides your audiences. It certainly doesn’t seem to have been effective for the underrated Bubble and the no-name unknowns who were cast to act in it.
context is everything
13 years ago
cogdogblog recently blogged about goingtorain, the website that gives you a weather forecast in the simplest form possible. Is it going to rain? In my case, it was snow (and below the “yes,” it states “there will be snow today with a high of 27°f in saint paul, mn.”
What I love about this site is its simplicity. I’m constantly talking to my students about simplicity and context. It’s easy. Is it going to rain? In this case it means “will there be precipitation?” Yes. Simple. Easy. What is the context of that “yes?” Is it going to rain? Yes.
So what happens when you take a serious scene from the movie Downfall and put subtitles to it that change the context of the entire scene? How do we view the scene in the context of the subtitles?
For the record, the weeping women and the comment of “There, there. I hear he only shoots in jpg anyway” did crack me up.
to the letter
23 years ago
I teach a Technical and Professional Writing course for juniors and seniors in disciplines across the curriculum. We discuss and practice writing in many different forms: correspondence, instructional, data analysis, and others. In the process of this course, I use email entirely for correspondence outside of the classroom. I expect return emails to be done in a formalized manner: salutation, body, and a proper closing. It is tiresome to get emails that are just attachments, or that don’t contain the name of who is writing me (this is especially bothersome early in the semester when I don’t know the names and email addresses of the students yet). My students are great about it and give me wonderful emails (my instructions were to be conversational in approach because we are spending an entire semester together and this allows me to get to know the students better).
It seems, however, that not all students are receptive to this type of writing. In fact, Historiann‘s experience was downright awful. The exchange that really amuses me is
Thank you for responding, but at the same time it is not your duty to counsel others on how to conduct themselves via email. I was never rude or inappropriate in any manner. I’ve had many professors and others I’m not well acquainted with who email me in the same fashion. There are many customs and practices and no single one is correct. You are the first person I’ve had an email exchange with that feels the need to reprimand me about email etiquette.
I’m a 33 year old man who doesn’t need to be told how to conduct myself. I do just fine. Hopefully, in the future you will be more relaxed with not only students, but any person who may be interested in talking to you about history. You will find that you shut out a lot of people in life by conducting yourself in this manner.
While it is true that there are many customs, there are also appropriate guidelines that we should follow when approaching someone to ask for assistance and whom we don’t know. In addition, perhaps it is important to remember that formality is a condition of a relationship. I write to plenty of friends and family without a proper salutation (I almost always close with my first initial — lowercase d), but I’m also very cognizant of my audience. When I write to a new professor, I always greet them with Dr. or Professor so-and-so. It is not until we’ve developed a relationship do I even ask how they would prefer to be addressed — even in email.
I believe my students deserve the same respect. I email them with a salutation, body, and a closing with my full first name — unless it is an ongoing conversation, and then I will often do without the salutation (and realize they may as well).
If I were to write an email to my husband’s pillow (if I had a husband and he had a pillow like this), on the other hand, I doubt it would get any respect from me. It may just get the trash.
a shared culture
13 years ago
This video is a brilliant portrayal of the ideology of creative commons. I believe in the creative commons movement, and to that end, all of my photographs are marked under a creative commons license.
That being said, I think that people often take advantage of creative commons licenses. People don’t read them, corporations ignore the restrictions based on certain licenses (mine, for instance, is attribution, no derivatives, no commercial use) and freely use works that are clearly not meant for their use (which really bothers me because they are making money off of someone else’s work, but not giving back to the artist to make sure that more works can be developed).
Now, if someone asks me for permission to use my photographs in a mashup or to do things with it, all I ask for is a copy of their created work. I will usually give permission to other artists and to not-for-profits. I like sharing my work. It’s not what I do for a living, and I want others to enjoy it.
Is it idealistic to hope that others will ask permission? Or that a shared commerce is a better commerce? If someone makes a living off of their work, that’s one thing. I can understand full copyright restrictions and recommend that their works be registered with the Library of Congress (or their country’s equivalent) to protect their full rights. But if one isn’t a full-time artist, making a living from the sales of her works, what is the harm in sharing them freely?
Is it a scary proposition to share like that? Are we so commercially oriented that sharing makes us feel like we’re missing out on something or that we’re being taken?
Personally, I hate money. It’s a necessary evil, but I hate it. I wish we could barter for goods. I’ll edit your resume if you buy me a few meals. I’ll create your website for groceries. Each person gets what they need out of an exchange, and it’s a nice way to live.
crawford
13 years ago
Hulu recently premiered its first movie. Crawford began as an expose into the ways the Bush campaign took the image of a rustic cowboy, smalltown American man and turned him into a President (when he wasn’t really from a small town, nor really a rustic cowboy). What this movie turned into was a great insight into what makes a nation function: its people.
This is really a film about identity: the identity of a President, a town, the people of the town, and the visitors. The most obvious, of course, is the identity of the President. Look closer though and you’re going to see how a town’s identity changes because of the historic events that take place within it. You’re going to see how the locals shape their identities around not only the town, but the events that occur within that town. The visitors change not only the identity of the town, the people, and the President, but we see such a small piece of them that their identity is set up to establish the idea of “other” within the town.
So much of our personal identities are constructed from where we’ve lived, how we’ve lived, who we call “our people,” and other factors. I think that this movie is an excellent look into that phenomenon, in a microcosm sort of way.
It’s free. It’s online. It’s a great piece of documentary work.
it’s raining…shoes?
33 years ago
The new Chevy Traverse commercial disturbs me. It takes a stereotype (all women like a lot of shoes) and tries to sell a car through that stereotype. Now, it’s not a nearly naked woman selling the vehicle to men. Oh, no…it’s a women scooping up armfuls of shoes into the back of the Traverse — selling, I suppose, to women. Because we all love, love, love shoes. Don’t we?
Frankly, I’m not really a shoe person. Ask anyone. You’ll see me more in Tevas, Birks, or Croc sandals than anything else. High-heels, especially those shown in the this commercial or immortalized in Sex and the City (I wouldn’t even know what Manolo Blahniks are were it not for that show), look uncomfortable and, let’s face it, too expensive for someone like me to buy.
Is this ad sexist? Is it feeding on a negative or a positive stereotype? Do you think it’s all in good fun, or should we be finding a fault with it?
I like the music. It’s catchy. I’m not too keen on the premise, though. It bothers me a bit.
(BTW, their ad that shows a man ironing, cleaning a toilet, etc., bothers me because of its sexist bent, as well.)
the omission factor
43 years ago
I’ve always been conscious of my place within society. I’ve known, since the beginning it seems, that I’ve been on the peripheral edges looking in, wondering how to get “in.” I’ve been reading back through my blog in an effort to not reiterate things I’ve written about before, and I’ve realized how much my identity as a marginalized person has permeated my writings. I’ve also realized how much it has really affected me in what I’ve chosen to study, how I go about my education, and why I’m so keen to understand these artificial divides we construct.
I’ve written several times about our poverty and the trials that went along with that. As I’m pondering all of this, though, and re-reading my own writings, there are moments in my life that are becoming more important and more defining than others. Most of these concepts have to do with an omission of some sort.
Take, for instance, the linguistic style of dropping g’s. Obviously the dropped g has a connection to class. I didn’t realize how this impacts us in education until one day when my brother, Shadow, came home to tell me about the girl he was dating (who would later become his wife). He said, “Jennifer comes from a higher class than we do. She doesn’t drop her g’s.” I thought about it. I considered, very carefully, how I pronounced things. I started paying attention to how my classmates pronounced words. I realized that I was in the minority, that others, especially in an academic setting, were much more careful about their “g’s” than I was (or that it was just a part of their linguistic style). My omission of a consonant, whether noticed by others or not, set me apart in my own mind.
It is assumed, especially with an English background, that we have read the classics. It is assumed, when you walk into a college classroom (at least it was when I first started college, but I don’t think this is necessarily true now), that you will have a basic knowledge built upon certain texts. I haven’t ever really been introduced to the canon of English literature. I took Shakespeare in college because the one Shakespeare play I read in high school, Romeo and Juliet (of course), reminded me of the tickets I had won to see Much Ado About Nothing when I was twelve and how privileged I felt to go to a play at the university to see Shakespeare. I thought you were supposed to immerse yourself in Shakespeare to be educated (and to be fair, I actually love Shakespeare now). But I haven’t ever read Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, or even Wuthering Heights (which is on my nightstand because I thought it might be time). I can pass myself off as being knowledgeable and well-read, but in reality, I’m not. I read everything I could get my hands on, but acceptable literature was rarely available to me. This omission of a “real” literature background has forced me to have a distaste for canonical discussions. To me the very idea that only certain books allow us to have a cultured education is ridiculous.
I once took a creative non-fiction course. The first assignment in this course was to write about a real-life experience. I wrote about being trashcan kids. It’s such a real experience for my family, and one that is not shared by many people we know. We then had to share this writing with the rest of the class and have it critiqued. As the class read the story, I could hear the rumblings. Was that my panic or their disdain? Then came the discussions. “Disgusting.” “How can people live like that?” From that moment, I decided that it might be better if I didn’t share too much information about myself. It wasn’t until I was in a graduate class dealing with memoirs and trauma that I actually shared more. At that point, one of my classmates began talking about being raped. The class went silent. It was like they couldn’t relate. In order to alleviate some of the focus (because she was obviously still dealing with the emotions of the attack), I talked about being a walking cliche: poverty, homelessness, abuse, and other things. And yet here I am, fighting against the status quo to make my life different. Then my classmates opened up. Another talked about her alcohol addictions. Yet another spoke of living on the streets (by choice, but still about the impacts of that on her outlook). What I omitted, though, was that this is a struggle. Every day is a struggle to overcome these issues.
I own a home (which I’m trying to sell). I don’t tell many people about my home, and I have rarely invited people over. Why? Because while I own my home and the 2 1/2 acres with amazing mountain views, it is the type of home that automatically establishes an identity for the homeowner. I own a manufactured home. When people call it a trailer, I cringe. It’s on a stemwall. It’s in place. It doesn’t have aluminum siding or paneled wood walls (and I’ve lived in those types of homes, as well). My biases start coming out because of the stigma that is attached to that type of home. I don’t tell my classmates where I live and I don’t invite people over for study groups because I’ve heard their comments about those types of homes. This only places a larger divide between my classmates and me. I’m not one of them.
While some of these divides are my own creation, some of them are also based upon a societal need to define and organize everything and everyone into categories. If I try to pass or blend in through omission, is that defying categorization, or just feeding in to it?
pop goes the culture
33 years ago
I’m inept when it comes to pop culture. Oh, sure, I can tell you all of the cool tech things happening. I can also name a few popular television shows and *maybe* a few popular musical groups. But I started watching Battlestar Galactica when season three was ending. I didn’t get into Star Trek the Next Generation or Deep Space Nine until well into the shows, and even then, I didn’t actually see all of the episodes until I was living in Britain ten years after the start of the former program. I *just* started watching Farscape, Doctor Who, and Torchwood.
It may come as no surprise that while I may know quite a few songs on the radio, I don’t actually know who sings them. I kept hearing about this thing called “The Hills,” and about these big stars like Kim Kardashian, but I had no idea who any of them were until Joel McHale and The Soup told me (and now I wish I had remained blissfully ignorant). There are people on the covers of magazines in supermarket checkout stands that are not familiar to me at all. I have no idea who these people are. And really I don’t care.
This week, however, it became painfully apparent to me that I’m out of the pop culture loop. First, George Carlin died. Sure, I know who he is. He’s the 7-dirty-words guy. But I never watched his routines on television. Nor did I click on the YouTube links for his routines when they were passed around blogs, twitter, and friendfeed. I didn’t really *get* him (but that might be due to the fact that I didn’t really give him much time).
There was an outpouring of sadness on the ‘net that day. I mean, everywhere I turned, people were talking about him. I didn’t have anything to add. I didn’t know enough about him to be able to add anything. Nor was I moved to do learn more. He was off my cultural radar.
Then today I receive an email from a co-worker asking me if I had been following this Matt Harding guy over the years. What? Who the hell is Matt Harding, I ask myself. So I google him. Funny…a promoter of a very specific niche of viral videos. I’d never heard of him, but millions have followed his story.
Where was I during all of this? Have I been hiding under a rock for the past 40 years? Wait…if you ask me to give you detailed synopses of Pride and Prejudice or The Temple of My Familiar, I can. If you want a treatise on the causes of the Civil War, I could probably do that, too, without much effort. If you need research done on the socio-linguistic tendencies of fifteen-year-old girls in the San Fernando Valley, I can probably give you a good idea of how they establish many of the language patterns for the entire United States.
But George Carlin, Kim Kardashian, Matt Harding, and The Hills? Nope. I haven’t a clue.
wordle identity
03 years ago
I love this little tool. It’s not only a cool way to look at the things we’re doing, but it’s a great way to talk about clouds, topics, and the ways things are organized.
click image for larger view
I had created a wordle for my flickr tags. It was fun. So I thought it would be fun to take another look at something I’ve been working at as long as my flickr tags (yes, dear reader, I had actually been working on my thesis topic since 2005).
This is only chapter one of my thesis, but it gives a strong overview of the language I use, the concepts I’m dealing with, and the areas of importance within the thesis. I chose that chapter mostly because it doesn’t have the case studies in it, and partly because it’s a great overview of the thesis.
What I like about wordle is that you can also choose the font, colors, and directions of your cloud. And, being the crazy semiotics lover that I am, I think that this says something about what I’m trying to share with you. So I chose tones that are indicative of the tones that are usually associated with my blog, but that are also very natural colors. I chose a font in which everything fits neatly within one another, showing the overlapping concepts, but that is also very easy to read. I chose the 1/2 and 1/2 horizontal/vertical directions because I wanted to show the ways that these concepts fit in neatly with one another.
That’s my interpretation of it. What do you see?
new directions
0
With the changing of my blogging clothing, I’ve decided to add a bit of academia to my blog.
Above the first post on my blog, there is an announcement box. In this box, I will be posting rhetoric/composition/scientific & technical comm conferences and calls for proposals/papers.
Mostly this is for me, because I can’t keep up with all of the deadlines and opportunities. But I think it’s also a great way to share this with other people who might be interested in seeing what is available out there.
If you know of a conference / CFP in these areas, please send me an email. I’ll get it posted.