|
Back to Nightlight Press |
Archive for April 2003 I was messing about with my journal to try and get some kind of comment system onboard, but it'll have to wait. Also, I think this is the scariest I've ever unintentionally looked for a webcam picture:  I just upgraded this software, testing. And now I have gone back to the backup. I think another reason why I liked it was that the design was very Kubrick, a lot of stark white space. The dream sequence especially, is threatening in that way. I've read reviews, particularly the Salon.com one, Sumana, where the reviewer is complaining that no Walmart-alike store would be designed to be that bright white, nor the photo lab pulled so far back from the rest of the store. Come on, that's symbolism! Although I suppose the symbolism was a little much. Especially if you listen to the commentary. A couple of months ago, I wrote an entry about how to write a weblog post in a way that wouldn't turn my stomach. I like writing, but I think there's a difference between writing and being a writer, and usually I don't like the latter so much. Okay, I don't know so many "writers" to be able to claim that. One thing I can't stand reading is lingo. It depends on where, of course, but in the sort of "I did this today" posts people write, use of lingo or neat terms from work always seems artificial, bragging. I try to generalize my language as far as my work goes (not that it makes for good posts) because I don't want to sound uppity. Specifically, I don't like the listener having to go "oooh, what's 'burn rate' mean?" And then the writer can brag about the inside terminology he casually dropped. Anybody can do this. I single out writers or other storytellers because... I don't know, when I'm typing these personal entries, I feel like I'm talking to you. Sometimes I'll get cute and use a phrase or words I wouldn't think of in normal conversation, but by and large this is how I talk. If I'm writing a story, it's completely different; this is too casual for that, generally. But I get the impression that writers are themselves, and pleasant and what-have-you, in their daily lives, and then you read one of their personal posts, and it's obvious that they forgot that they're not writing a story. In other words, they treat their experience as if it was a clever little short story, with themselves as the main character. And it's all loaded with cute sentence structures, and stand-alone "impact" sentences that goddamn newspaper columnists use. Like this one. To me this creates a really stand-offish, artificial tone, and it bothers me. And I guess it bothers me because, I completely understand the need for some artifice or a persona online (hello), but I'd just like to see somewhere where the person is real. That kind of glib, ultra-articulate talk doesn't seem real to me. I guess the real difference is why you're posting an entry. Are you telling me something interested that happened, or are you bragging? My dad let me borrow his copy of this movie, which he didn't like so much, apparently. I thought it was great. I think it did a couple things very, very right that so many other movies try to do, and completely fail at. 1) The movie dealt with being someone not worth remembering, and not wanting to be forgotten. The main character is a completely forgettable person in charge of what other people want to remember. I've often thought about that kind of thing, and my worst fear is being completely forgotten, or my work being completely forgettable. 2) The scene at the end, with the pictures -- I guess the movie came out too recently to spoil that, but it ties back in with (1), the other 99% of life that doesn't involve smiling and looking artificial, and yet that's all we take pictures of and keep, generally. I have thought about that a lot in the past year. I think that was one contributing factor to my (often irrational) anxiety. That made me cry. 3) The nightmare he has in the middle of the film. The nightmare is maybe ten seconds long, but it's perfect, very Kubrick. (If they'd used only jump cuts for that scene, I'd have wet my pants.) But most importantly, it was very random and open to interpretation, unlike a lot of movies which show a dream or nightmare, and forget that dreams don't follow some goddamn broad, logical progression. Dreams are not storytelling, they have an intent or direction, but no point. That's why nightmares affect people, because a lot of times they're something frightening that makes no goddamn sense. And yet moviemakers will make dream sequences in movies weighed down with tons of symbolism, and sledgehammer meaning (a man's wife died -- he only dreams of her saying "why did you leave me?" Come on.). Anyway, the only thing I didn't really care for was the thing he did that got him in trouble near the end of the movie -- that was sort of unnecessary, or rather, necessary to throw the audience off the trail a little. But because the movie kind of crystallized things I've thought about a lot, I thought it was excellent. I now look at number of letters/numbers trailing a spam subject line as a barometer for level of desperation. A spam with a subject line of "This Is What You've Been Waiting For" is bold, confident. Maybe this is what I've been waiting for. But then you get your "Come Take A Look! 4552" and your "do i know u?? gjkcuifk" and they just seem a lot more sad, pathetic. Almost as if the author is banging his head against his keyboard in sorrow. Lately I've been getting a lot like "jfltbi-949kgZ-f Hey kstraub, exciting lkr-932ojjlkjqw90032jh" and I'm tempted to write back, lest the script commit suicide. It's a cry for help. Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:44:01 -0700 From: "Fresh Alive" To: Subject: Why conso-1idate if you can just E1iminate Wazzup, p33pz, wazzup? This b Fresh Alive, tha flyest acc0unt-ant eva, and I g0t tha lowd0wn on c0ns0-l1dating y0 debt. Ari Fleischer: 'Freedom's taste is unquenchable' Is there no way to sate this ravenous taste? http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/04/07/yahoo.search.ap/index.html Yahoo to revamp its search engine to make it more useful than Google, easier to use. And, Microsoft is developing its own search engine that'll be better than Google, and provide users a better "experience." Hello, Microsoft and Yahoo. When I visit a search engine, I want to enter my request, and receive a list of findings. I do not want a goddamn experience. I do not want colorful ads and sidebars about J.Lo fashions. I do not want a place to log in and retrieve my mail. In fact, I do not want to be there any longer than is required for me to get my search results and leave. Is that why Google is so successful? Nah. It's the search engine! Can't deny that it's a good one. But what a plain interface! How about some tabs, and toolbars, and scrolling windows, and a frame with links to enhanced content, and Flash pop-up ads? Hurry it up! Show us simpletons a real search experience and you'll steal the market! |
