Thursday, April 07, 2005
"Ha ha! I do twenty points of damage to drain the last of your life with my Extreme Anti-Capitalist Argument Power!"
We're reading Judith Butler's Bodies That Matter right now, and really it's quite good.
I wrote on William Sharpe, who wrote under the name Fiona Macleod. Interesting, really, that a man would write using a woman's name; usually it works out the other way around. But Sharpe wrote about Celtic mythology at the time when the female was the symbol for Ireland. It's especially important to understand Ireland's feminization from the colonial standpoint, as in colonial discourse of Sharpe's time there was a consistent drive to depict the colonized as feminine and the colonizer as masculine. Butler writes on the passing down of the Name of the Father as the imposition of law, so in this way it makes much sense that the Irish voice of rebellion took a female form in its refusal of its English colonizers.
William Sharpe fits the bill for the time--he doesn't seem to be overtly writing on Irish rebellion, because the Anglo-Irish literati weren't convinced that violent uprising was the way to go, but his work on Irish legends was the sort of stuff that was rebellious because it reclaimed and gave voice to the native mythologies. Check out Fiona Macleod; it's interesting enough, at least.
In class Susanne mentioned the Theory Trading Cards website to tell us all that there is a site where we can see our favorite critics, like Judith Butler, on trading cards. I asked if you could play Magic with them, and felt reminded in my head that for some reason, in that class jokes swim through a bog with rocks in their pockets. It could have also been a not funny joke.
Anyhow, I still bore the idea in my head that there was a game somewhere, and I felt somewhat validated when I saw Judith Butler's trading card:
The best part of this card is her "Weakness," but this fits fairly well into how we discuss logic and arguments, anyhow. But did you notice her "Special Skill?"
Special Skill? That sounds like a game feature to me! Need proof? See Simone de Beauvoir's card:
See her Special Skill? "Cast existential dread, crisis." Ah! It is a game after all! I had in my head that you could really put together a deck filled with these, and you could play a game! I was already writing it in my head, how the different suits could be the different schools of theory, and that your "land" or resource cards could be different works of art or something.
Then I saw they actually have a game. And then I read the rules. And then I realized that these trading cards are great, but in some way a joke, and that developing a CCG based around critical theorists would REALLY out me as a dork.
And we couldn't have that, could we.
I wrote on William Sharpe, who wrote under the name Fiona Macleod. Interesting, really, that a man would write using a woman's name; usually it works out the other way around. But Sharpe wrote about Celtic mythology at the time when the female was the symbol for Ireland. It's especially important to understand Ireland's feminization from the colonial standpoint, as in colonial discourse of Sharpe's time there was a consistent drive to depict the colonized as feminine and the colonizer as masculine. Butler writes on the passing down of the Name of the Father as the imposition of law, so in this way it makes much sense that the Irish voice of rebellion took a female form in its refusal of its English colonizers.
William Sharpe fits the bill for the time--he doesn't seem to be overtly writing on Irish rebellion, because the Anglo-Irish literati weren't convinced that violent uprising was the way to go, but his work on Irish legends was the sort of stuff that was rebellious because it reclaimed and gave voice to the native mythologies. Check out Fiona Macleod; it's interesting enough, at least.
In class Susanne mentioned the Theory Trading Cards website to tell us all that there is a site where we can see our favorite critics, like Judith Butler, on trading cards. I asked if you could play Magic with them, and felt reminded in my head that for some reason, in that class jokes swim through a bog with rocks in their pockets. It could have also been a not funny joke.
Anyhow, I still bore the idea in my head that there was a game somewhere, and I felt somewhat validated when I saw Judith Butler's trading card:
The best part of this card is her "Weakness," but this fits fairly well into how we discuss logic and arguments, anyhow. But did you notice her "Special Skill?"
Special Skill? That sounds like a game feature to me! Need proof? See Simone de Beauvoir's card:
See her Special Skill? "Cast existential dread, crisis." Ah! It is a game after all! I had in my head that you could really put together a deck filled with these, and you could play a game! I was already writing it in my head, how the different suits could be the different schools of theory, and that your "land" or resource cards could be different works of art or something.
Then I saw they actually have a game. And then I read the rules. And then I realized that these trading cards are great, but in some way a joke, and that developing a CCG based around critical theorists would REALLY out me as a dork.
And we couldn't have that, could we.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Before there were memes
A long time ago, before I knew about blogs, I had this list of favorite sites. This list of favorite sites turned surfing the internet into a corporate activity: I loved to hang out with friends and check out these sites.
After all this time, one of these popped into my head: oo. I guess oo requires something of a different sense of humor, as it was just one of those sites that I found more funny than did anyone else.
Maybe that says something.
I'll admit that some of oo is uneven, and it's at its best when you almost get it. The best jokes are at the top of the site; those are the older gags, and the funnier. The ones marked New! take away a bit of the charm; the site was stronger as a museum piece, or an often overlooked oasis of obscure oddity.
Anyhow, oo is still charmingly subtle, and a millionth as bombastic as anything that uses Flash. Looking at it again is a little like playing Joust; sure, there are technically superior forms of entertainment, but there are times when something simpler is more pleasing. Or when your computer simply doesn't have speakers.
After all this time, one of these popped into my head: oo. I guess oo requires something of a different sense of humor, as it was just one of those sites that I found more funny than did anyone else.
Maybe that says something.
I'll admit that some of oo is uneven, and it's at its best when you almost get it. The best jokes are at the top of the site; those are the older gags, and the funnier. The ones marked New! take away a bit of the charm; the site was stronger as a museum piece, or an often overlooked oasis of obscure oddity.
Anyhow, oo is still charmingly subtle, and a millionth as bombastic as anything that uses Flash. Looking at it again is a little like playing Joust; sure, there are technically superior forms of entertainment, but there are times when something simpler is more pleasing. Or when your computer simply doesn't have speakers.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Ashes on a stick
I don't even know where to start with this article, which compares Terri Schiavo's death to Jesus's crucifixion.
We could start, I suppose, with the details. Like that Terri's already been cremated. They never got their hands on Jesus. And that Terri's blood isn't saving any souls.
I could go on, but it wouldn't be proper. I'm just disgusted by this comparison. It's pure emotional appeal. It entirely ignores the details of either the Schiavo case or the story of the crucifixion, and in this way abuses both Schiavo and Christ.
Now, maybe we shouldn't judge a website by one story, but this story got me really curious who the Cybercast News Service is. They claim, from their Corporate History website, to be "a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin." So we're looking for balance here. Then maybe we've got it, because this kind of "journalism" should be equally as revolting to people of faith on both sides of the Schiavo case.
One of the site's testimonials, from Cal Thomas, says that CSN has "...facts that you can print out and share with your friends... and those facts can be used to convert people to the truth." The religious overtones of this statement make the Schiavo story even more vulgar. You can't convert anyone by nailing a braindead woman to a cross. You're only going to sway people whose eyes are too feeble to discern the vague forms they see, whose tongues taste truth when they swallow opinion. At best, this crowd will go out and find other sightless, tasteless louts, and form an itinerant stumbling band of vocal fools.
Oh wait, we already have that with the Schiavo case. So much for balance.
We could start, I suppose, with the details. Like that Terri's already been cremated. They never got their hands on Jesus. And that Terri's blood isn't saving any souls.
I could go on, but it wouldn't be proper. I'm just disgusted by this comparison. It's pure emotional appeal. It entirely ignores the details of either the Schiavo case or the story of the crucifixion, and in this way abuses both Schiavo and Christ.
Now, maybe we shouldn't judge a website by one story, but this story got me really curious who the Cybercast News Service is. They claim, from their Corporate History website, to be "a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin." So we're looking for balance here. Then maybe we've got it, because this kind of "journalism" should be equally as revolting to people of faith on both sides of the Schiavo case.
One of the site's testimonials, from Cal Thomas, says that CSN has "...facts that you can print out and share with your friends... and those facts can be used to convert people to the truth." The religious overtones of this statement make the Schiavo story even more vulgar. You can't convert anyone by nailing a braindead woman to a cross. You're only going to sway people whose eyes are too feeble to discern the vague forms they see, whose tongues taste truth when they swallow opinion. At best, this crowd will go out and find other sightless, tasteless louts, and form an itinerant stumbling band of vocal fools.
Oh wait, we already have that with the Schiavo case. So much for balance.
