It appears I was on the right track on my previous blog by quoting a gamer who liked the social connections made in multiplayer games like warcraft and everquest.  The players words mirror Jakobsson etal. who examine “how the friendships between players could be the ultimate export of the game.” 

It appears that cooperation is the key to success in the game (as in other walks of life as well.)  It is also evident that social hierarchies exist as well as a strong sense of community.   I thought the comparison of multiplayer games to the social operation of mafias was a good way to provide some context to those who have no clue how the game works. 

From a sociological viewpoint the intricacies of the game are very interesting.  The social networking is very complex, much more so than I assumed.  I can see how rewarding the status and social connection gained in the game can be and how it can cross over to RL (real life-that’s right i now know the lingo.)  Well this clip makes it look all rather exciting:

I am trying to be more accepting but I still have the uneasy feeling that involved video games like warcraft distract people from real issues in our everyday world and that hours spent playing the game everyday can place strain on relationships with people in your life that do not partake in the games network. To those who are really dedicated one’s offline life takes backseat to the game.

I suppose I am mimiking Chomsky’s view that video games as well as sports subdue the masses and Paul will probably say I am an elitist.  But that is where I stand.  Spending hours in an alternate universe means less time for discussing the state of our world right now. 

I would much rather read a book than play video games.  Better yet I would rather interact with real people than fictional characters.  I always thought video games were mindless and often heavily focused on violence (excluding Mario cart of course).  I know I am being harsh in my assessment but hey I gotta be honest!

Witness Grand Theft Auto’s controversy: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/13/earlyshow/living/parenting/main708794.shtml

The game is being blamed for some kid’s shooting spree in Alabama.  Same old story, blame the media for adolescent boys violence.  I am not interested in that.  What disturbs me is that their is a huge market for excessively violent video games like grand theft.

Like so many of the media images today, grand theft auto perpetuates the stereotypes of tough, violent masculinity and women as sex objects.

Grand theft auto is not indicative of all video games I know. 

Lets move onto warcraft, which I also have a beef with, particularly cause my roommate almost broke up with her boyfriend over it.  Its like some tabloid headline:

“WARCRAFT THREATENS OTHERWISE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP”

I am trying to understand how it is able to draw people in so that they will wake up at 3 in the morning to play.  Why is it so captivating? Anybody who has a good reason please enlighten me.  I am open to accepting it if I feel there are valid reasons to do so. 

As one reporter from the new york times states, multiplayer games like warcraft take “hard-core geek property and repolishing them so they are accessible to the mainstream”.  I don’t know I went to the world of warcraft homepage and it looks pretty geeky to me. 

But that is beside the point.  Perhaps the main attraction stated by this player’s comments on metacritic.com sums up the social aspect I often ignore “In fact, apart from the world itself, the great attraction of World of Warcraft for me is the community. Making friends and helping each other out is especially enjoyable. “

I am looking forward to learning more on wednesday. I doubt my love of the physical world will be traded for the virtual though. 

But despite all the explanations I still am not really that sure what a split infinitive is.  This was perhaps the most straitforward and well rounded definition I found (from askoxford.com) :

This is a split infinitive:

To boldly go where no man has gone before!

The infinitive is to go, and it has been ‘split’ by the adverb boldly. Split infinitives have been the cause of much controversy among teachers and grammarians, but the notion that they are ungrammatical is simply a myth: in his famous book Modern English Usage, Henry Fowler listed them among ‘superstitions’!

Split infinitives are frequently poor style, but they are not strictly bad grammar. In the example above, to avoid the split infinitive would result either in weakness (to go boldly) or over-formality (boldly to go): either would ruin the rhythmic force and rhetorical pattern of the original. It is probably good practice to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, but clumsy attempts to avoid them simply by shuffling adverbs about can create far worse sentences.

Well class there is your grammer lesson for today.  Now i am going to quickly leave to frantically study because I want to not fail a class.  (ps. there were 3 in there.)

But is this increased representaion actually representational or does it just perpetuate stereotypes that box homosexuals in?

First of all I could think of hardly any lesbian couples shown in mainstream television.  There was Marissa and that girl on the OC but other than that all I could come up with was the show Buffy which did a good job of showing a caring, loving lesbian relationship without succumbing to the stereotypes of butch women or the male fantasies of two women making out. 

It seems to me that the only time lesbians or homosexual behaviour of women is mentioned on sitcomes or other tv programs it is to provide sexual interest to men. 

On the other hand there are more representations of gay men on mainstream TV.  But of course they are also heavily stereotyped.  Gay men are shown as being feminine and girly and shown in a very “campy” way.  Or as Horsley Ross says gay men are seen as “weak and silly”.  Also gay men are always liked by women, and treated like girlfriends (shop together, gossip etc.)

It appears to me that gay men on TV provide humour, in contrast to lesbians providing sexual interest.

Besides shows with actual gay couples, like Will and Grace, homosexuality and homophobia is a huge source for comedy on sitcoms.  A great example is the show Friends. 

 Iglebaek Vegard discusses Joey and Chandlers relationship and different ways of interpreting their friendship as either adhering to the heterosexual stereotype that male friends cannot express emotions, or that their relationship is full of homophobic tension or that they are demonstrating more openness and acceptability of expressing emotions. 

What I would like to look at as a prime example of homophobia used for comic purposes is Joey and Ross’s napping: 

This clip shows Joey and Ross’s discomfort and secrecy at breaking a taboo between male friends: that is that guys are not allowed to be physically intimate without sexual connotations, unlike female friends who are allowed to be quite affectionate with each other without breaking any social norms. 

Overall I think television programming is becoming more accepting of homosexuals but I think the representation of gay and lesbian women on TV is heavily stereotyped, sometimes derogatory and mostly superficial.  We have a long way to go, but perhaps shows like Friends that show guys interacting in new ways may be a start.   

 http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-6161930.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news 

It is crazy that there is this huge porn industry worth billions of dollars that I really don’t know anything about.  Well hopefully wednesday’s class will be enlightening.

Yesterday I was procrastinating on youtube when I ran across a video of the “pavement Picasso” Julian Beever.  He is a true artist with great talent. 

I enjoy looking at youtube videos for the diversity and also lack of adds.  But here was Aveeno advertising on the sidewalk.  It made me think about how some of the most creative and artistic individuals are in advertising.

This is an example of how our society values money and consumption, so that Beever is deemed worthwhile through his eye catching pavement advertisments instead of being valued and paid for doing art for art’s sake. 

The problem is that what individuals value is not what companies do, even though they try and package their products in a way that is appleaing to people’s values and desires. 

As the beatles would say:

As Jhally noted money and consumption of material goods does not lead to happiness, love or friends.  Therefore advertising tries to build social connections to products.  Are we just suckers buying it all? Do we really believe that Axe will make women have sex with men or that eating at McDonald’s is a bonding family experience?  

And if we do buy into advertisers reflecting our desires onto products, is there a problem with that? I agree with Jhally that there is.  But how do we change our culture of consumption?  I am afraid I only have questions. 

However this being said, I hardly ever read music reviews.  Mostly I use my friends that are employees at HMV to filter music for me.  I trust their opinions and have not been disappointed yet.  And besides screamo I will give pretty much any genre of music a try.   

What bothers me lately about mainstream music in the media is the emphasis on the pop machine and not on talent.  I am not sure why I am surprised, I suppose it has always been so.  But I look at the pop princess and princes and they seem so unreal, devoid of passion or even a better than average singing voice, witness Jessica Simpson (I am not even going to go into the message and symbolism present on this rolling stones cover):

I think one problem with my cynicism is that when something is current and new and hot it seems more manufactured, predictable and boring then when looking back on past decades and the pop stars of the 90′s, 80′s, 60′s and so on.  I admit my hypocrisy when I look back on Christinia’s old work and it seems more enjoyable then her work now. Anyway I will try and limit my ranting and get back on topic.  After reading the article on the music review website pitchfork I thought it only proper that I check out the site myself.  As previously noted I do not usually partake in music reviews and after reading a few I remembered why: it is much more enjoyable to listen to music than to read someone else’s experience of listening to it. 

Some of the bands on the site I had heard of but there were many more I had not.  This makes me happy, because I love when underdogs get rightfull attention.  I found some of the reviews hard to follow (obviously especially if one has not heard the music yet. )

Some reviews were also very in-depth and it reminded me of studying poetry in English class.  The teacher goes on and on about the symbolism, hidden meanings and literal devices present in a verse of poetry and I wonder how much of the analysis the artist intended or was even aware of when they wrote the poem in the first place. 

I guess that is the point of art, music included; it is open to interpretation.  Personally that is what I love about music, that it is so individual.  What I associate, experience and feel while listening to a song is all my own and different than anyone else hearing the same piece of music.

Anyway, I digress.  What I was meaning to blog about was Paul’s comment about our fleeting absorption and discard of movies.  It is very true that I get excited about some new blockbuster with Brad Pitt. 

And I may comment on the movie the next day but after that it leaves my consciousness.  I am a university student so I have limited room for movie plots and dialogue alongside trying to remember who Bordieu is and whether I just spelled his name correctly.

On the other hand our culture of mass consumption of media and art does not mean that it is all quickly forgotten.  Many movies, books and musicians definitely stand the test of time.  I think that is something to keep in mind while taking in art and media.  Of course we can’t be expected to enjoy and recall it all but the worthwhile, long-lasting pieces of art shine through and are made doubly great by juxtaposition against the mindless, stereotypical, unoriginal crap around it. 

Since we will be talking about music next week I thought I would give a musical example (of which there are many) of someone who should be enjoyed for years to come.

In the video manufacturing consent one interviewer asked what Noam’s image of a future society would look like.  He responded with something about challenging authorities legitimacy.  But how would an attitude of constant questioning of power manifest itself?   As Chomsky stated some control is legitimate and required for our survival but how would we decide as a society what powers deserve our allegiance? 

For example teachers have power in shaping our childrens minds and the government decides to some extent what curriculm they deliver.  But I am sure parents have a million different views on what should be taught in schools like evolution and history.  It could get very confusing and unmanageable if all those parents were to voice their concerns with all the teachers. 

I am not saying we should not be questioning authority I just think it is easier to suggest and harder to implement than Chomsky might suggest. 

Maybe Chomsky should run for president.  I wonder what he would do with all that power.  I suppose that would make his challenge authority views a little awkward.  Oh well if I was American I would vote for him and sport him on my t-shirt.