Just wanted to say that regardless of how much we all like or dislike the blogging, it does have a legitimate and beneficial reason for being a part of the course, and that made me feel a little bit better about it.

In Paul’s email he mentions that people have been ‘expressing disinterest’ towards the topic of gaming, and perhaps this is because of the readigns for this week? I found them to be incredibly ….. tedious, lackluster, bland, dreary,… (i’m trying to find nice ways of saying DULL or BORING) – sorry Paul!  

I think the articles covered some important ideas.. ie – the multifaceted topic in general, the importance of the actors themselves, modern games, types of games, categories of games, criticisms of research, etc.

BUT – I am looking more forward to a guest speaker, hopefully my attention will be kept!

Maybe the reason this week is a difficult one for me is because I can’t really relate. I can grasp the influence of games and their significant presence within modern society as well as their presence within history, but i’m still a little lost. The most gaming I do is play freecell on my computer… I do have a soft spot for Donkey Kong though, as my title suggests – but i played atleast 7 years ago.

 I can’t really wrap my head around the current gaming communities. A single game can now be accessed by a ton of people at once at a specific time and they can all play together. My nephew, who is 8, has a game online (something to do with penguins) that can be accessed by anyone, so all of his friends meet and play together at a spefic time of day! Even my 4 yr old nephew goes on!

This is awesome, and probably pretty closely related to Paul’s research, but I find the other mediums of mass communication much more relevent to my own interests.

Here is a funny (kind of rediculous) Donkey Kong video for any other lovers!

I think to understand a split infinitive we need to first understand what an infinitive is.

From Wikipedia we get the definition : In grammar, infinitive is the name for certain verb forms that exist in many languages. In the usual (traditional) description of English, the infinitive of a verb is its basic form with or without the particle to: therefore, do and to do, be and to be, and so on are infinitives.

So an example of an infinitive within a sentence would be : I am going to go to the grocery store tonight.

The definition we get from Wikipedia for split infinitive is: A split infinitive or cleft infinitive is an English-language grammatical construction in which a word or phrase, usually an adverb or adverbial phrase, occurs between the marker toand the bare infinitive (uninflected) form of a verb. One of the most famous split infinitives occurs in the opening sequence of the Star Trek television series: “to boldly go where no man has gone before.” Here, the adverb “boldly” splits the full infinitive “to go.”

So here we see the SPLITTING of “to go” by the word “boldly.”

Another example of a split infinitive would be : “To bravelybe the best soldier I can be.” Bravely is splitting the infinitive “to be” in this example.

Hope this makes it easier to understand split infinitives!

GREAT show, on thursdays after greys, just started last week, give it a try!

- seems as though it’s going to be more than just another honky-dory show.

 If you look at men in the media, i think they are constantly being portrayed as aggressive, dominant, useless in the kitchen, exactly the opposite of women. In Helen’s article she focused on mainly soap operas and advertisements. These are great places to look for the stereotypical male

Now here we have 2 calvin klein ads, both of which, in my opinion, depictiong a steroetypical version of each gender. The male being strong and agressive and the female being passive and feminine. My point here is that men get bombarded with the same types of media as women, and i’d be interested to read something about that. Men are given a standard to live up to as well and In my courses I haven’t learnt a great deal about the effects it has on men. Maybe there aren’t many, maybe women are effected more.. but it’s an interesting topic on both sides, not just on the female side. (In regards to advertising)

Now, maltesers In my opinion are just as awesome as mini-eggs.. in a different way, you still get a little crunch, but a different kind of crunch, They are little balls or chocolatey goodness, and the centre is honeycombed malt buscuit. Now I know that sounds a little different, but trust me, give them a shot, they’re so perfect and light and the milk chocolate on the outside is awesome.

So try them, and report back.

Hope you like them, my roommate tried them and loved them!

I think the fact that we have so many choices is both a good and bad thing! Now in reference to The Colbert Report and The Hills… these are 2 fine choices that I make on a regular basis, but 2 extremely different choices that take up a certain amount of time!

When I say that choices can be a bad thing, i’m meaning that since there is such an abundance of choice in regards to media, I feel like we get lost in it a little. I spend a disgusting amount of my time devoted to television.

I structure (this may sound awful… but none the less true) much of my studying/paper writing around TV!… I usually have atleast an hour a night that I can’t be studying because of a show, so I have to either get the work done before, or after.. which is most commonly the case. And perhaps because of this my studies suffer… but what do I care because I saw the latest episode of the hills, is this not ludacris?! … yes… but if i’m wrong, i dont wanna be right! haha

 It’s a good thing in the same token BECAUSE we get such an abundance of choice.. I can be watching the hills at 8, and then 4 hours later I get a small dose of hilarious reality with The Colbert Report. Now I woudln’t change a thing, but interesting to note how the growing number of choices within media effect our daily lives.

 ”Looking in that mirror and seeing something quite different than what you saw in that ad makes you stop and think for a second. “Wait. I look nothing like that. So what,” you think, “I’ll give those jeans a try anyway, because maybe, just maybe, I can lose enough weight to look like that. Or maybe the jeans will just create a look.” So you get the jeans and from that day forward you are constantly aware that you don’t look like that model and there is something wrong with your body.”

 After reading this passage at the beginning of the article i’m immediately thrown into a hypocritical discussion with myself. At first I went on the defense (all in my head of-course) that I’m not that girl who looks at the magazine ad and says ‘maybe i’ll look good in that shirt if i can lose a few pounds” and i’m continuing to think that “No.. just because i don’t look the same in those jeans doesn’t mean i’m questioning my own image of beauty” but the more I start to think about this… the more I realize that I am the girl who gets affected by this type of ad, and I am the girl who questions my own image of beauty when I see a perfectly trim body in a pair of expensive jeans I would die for.

I think today and perhaps in the past as well… we all (men included) deal with a push-pull between our own confidence and our own insecurities. We get told for the most part to value our own bodies and to realize that everyone is different and special in regards to their body AND personality. In the same breath, we’re being shown consistent images of beauty and strength that speak to a conformed image -for example, male models are usually all built, toned, good looking, masculine guys, and female models are for the most part tall, slim, beautiful, feminine women. How can we deal with both sides of this coin, we’re getting told to love our bodies but on the other hand we’re being shown what a beautiful or manly body ‘should’ look like.

Furthur down in the article the author says ” The reality of this statement is that she had to get this idea somewhere, and that somewhere is the media.” and I don’t necessariy agree with this statement 100%. I’d like to think we have some agency within our own idea of what beauty is, atleast to do with our own body image. I realize that the media ofcourse will have an affect on what is viewed as beautiful, but to say that it CREATES all insecurities is a little far fetched. On some level I think we’re all insecure regardless of whether the media is present or not. We as westerners live in a world full of standards and competition, everything is held up against something else. There’s progression, evolution, etc, that all promote the idea that things can always get a little better… and I think this can relate to body image and insecurities. As westerners there’s always a standard and I don’t think the media is 100% to blame for a standard of beauty.

I wanted to touch on one last thing while I’m talking about body image and the media. A few weeks ago while we were watching the Noam Chomsky video he said “any form of control requires justification” and I thought this was interesting in relation to body image. If we are to accept the idea that the media controls our idea of body image and creates insecurities then I wonder what the justification for this type of control would be?… Is it all in the name of making a quick buck for that hot designer pair of jeans, or is there some other justification, or..  can there really be a justification for a type of control we can’t REALLY define??.

This passage was at the very beginning of the article “Take Those Old Records Off the Shelf” : Youth and Music Consumption in the Postmodern Age.” I can definetely relate to this statement that yes our music landscape is populated with many untalented artists BUT it’s also populated with a ton of incredibly talented artisits. Granted Britney Spears has some pretty blah-zay vocals, she still dances and performs at a pretty high level. If you look back to the period of time “when artists released albums containing important
statements, unfettered by the interference of record labels” this may be true in relative terms, i’m sure there was a huge population of people during that period of time that thought the performers were a joke and completely void of any real talent. I think it’s valuable to consider relevance and context when we consider what music is good music.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the content of this essay. I do think resistance to mainstream culture may be an underlying reason for this new ‘vinyl’ group of listeners but I alsmot think the essay was TOO in depth and perhaps attached too much meaning to every aspect of vinyl culture. I do think that resisting the main stream has become just as cool as being in the mainstream so perhaps this has faciliated an increase of resistrance to main stream music.

I thought it was interesting that the way vinyl increases participation is a contributing factor to the enjoyment of this form of music. Perhaps we’re all sick of everything being turned into something ‘easier’ and more efficient, maybe the vinyl listeners are onto something. Engaging in the actual process of music may be as important as the actual content of the music!