The term overrated is itself overrated, or at least over used. It's snide, and self aggrandizing.
After reading The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac I was perusing online reviews and eventually was reading reviews of Kerouac's most well known novel On The Road.
Most of the reviews were poorly punctuated one sentence bits of finality.
"I loved it.
Hated it.
Pretty good inspirational read
And the dreaded OVERRATED"
I I don't understand why anyone would even bother to post an opinion on something like literature or a film if they weren't going into detail about why they liked it or not. It doesn't add anything to a discussion, and usually these boards are anything but discussion, and it only acts as an outlet to express a limited opinion. One word/sentence reviews, while succinct, are a waste of time and effort for both the author and writer.
Instead I would like to promote actual discussion online. Explain your reasons for why you loved Kerouac's prose or thought it was hamfisted and plotless.
An interesting occurrence on this particular board was the complaints that Kerouac didn't use a plot. I wonder if they understand the definition of the word. Plot = storyline. There is definitely a narrative flow, albeit untraditional there is a story.
Retire the term overrated, because enjoyment is still subjective. You don't like something that so many others loved and were affected by personally? Using the term overrated comes across like you are invalidating all those people's opinions. Maybe I'm stretching a bit, I simply don't like that term, it's lazy.
No more one word/sentence reviews. If you like something do not be afraid to break down the reasons why! The same must be true if you didn't like a film, an album, a piece of literature and so on. If you only have the time for a brief spot, just don't bother.
I don't want to be negative all the time with these diatribes and I assure you that I am very much at peace and would simply like to spark discussion! No more blanket statements! I would be a happy camper.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Criterion DVDs on nice discount!
I hate to shill for any company. I am not getting paid to advertise but any film lover should check this out if they are a collector.
Deepdiscount.com has a temporary promotion on where if you purchase a Criterion Collection DVD you get another Criterion of equal or lesser value for free.
What is a Criterion DVD you ask? Well, Criterion is a company in the States that acquires the rights to what they feel are artistic accomplishments in film history, digitally restore them and put together a slew of extra features. Without Criterion I likely would not have seen Seven Samurai, The Wages of Fear or several other fantastic films.
Many great auteurs are promoted through Criterion. Terry Gilliam, Akira Kurosawa, Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Jim Jarmusch, and Federico Fellini are but a few.
Although mostly out of print and very difficult to find, there are several old Alfred Hitchcock films outside the pantheon of his work. Instead of Vertigo and Psycho, Criterion released titles like The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes (both of which are still available), Notorious, Rebecca and Spellbound.
Recently I tried to convince myself that I was no longer buying DVD's because my collection is pretty stellar in my opinion. That quickly went out the window because I admit I am an addict of cinema. It is my biggest vice along with literature.
So I ordered six titles...Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Battle of Algiers, Solaris, Man Bites Dog and Brief Encounter. Likely you've heard of a couple of these and Solaris is the original Russian version, not the Clooney one.
So I urge any and all film fans to embrace Criterion if you have the cash to shell out. It is pricey but it's worth it if you love cinema. You end up paying for quality and deals like this are rare.
I wonder if I can collect a commission from either Criterion or DeepDiscount. Hopefully I just don't get sued.
Out of frustration...
Previously I made some choice comments directly about journalism. And I realize I spoke somewhat harshly about teachers. This was entirely inappropriate on my part and while I can't undo what I said, I hope I can genuinely display a bit of humility and regret.
I had a few moments where I contacted people and they downright refused to talk with me about a specific controversial topic and the article didn't get done. I vented out of frustration when I could have easily just kept trying to contact more.
What I did was lump every teacher in the area into my disappointment and that just isn't right or fair. For this an apology is definitely deserved. Teachers have been so important to me in my life, and some are still my friends and it would be devastating to lose that from idiotic comments I made out of frustration.
You forget sometime that people will read what you write and they will care and it took someone I respect and care for to point out my error and I would never want to insult or upset him in any way.
It also took another colleague of mine to point out how my jaded view of the world of journalism was a bit overboard because it isn't overly accurate.
I don't want to bore people with the details of disappointment in my life because I don't particularly like airing out my problems in public.
The job I have has been constantly promoted to me as a great thing and I feel obligated to feel privileged to have it...and yet I don't. Every time I chose a path I end up stepping back and second guess myself to the point where I convince myself that it's the wrong choice. Eventually I am going to have to just buckle down and tough it out.
Journalism (this might contradict what I said previously) does indeed offer a lot of positives. Being that I displayed disappointment about lack of balance, I myself was unbalanced in my approach. I was completely negative with no optimism.
Every day in journalism, you meet someone new, you hear a new perspective on life. You travel even if it within a small local area. You will become familiar with an entire area that otherwise you may have been unaware of.
My disappointment is likely due to the fact that I do feel boxed in because, well I haven't been anywhere. I probably shouldn't have read On the Road, Catcher in the Rye or other books about people who have no idea where their place in the world is.
I never want to be considered a jaded, bitter individual and I certainly don't wish to alienate anyone because of overt negativity. There is so much beauty in this world that to act nihilistic is to lose sight of the purpose of life.
The only thing I guess I should clarify is that I have realized that a career in print journalism as in the newspaper is likely not for me. I love writing and hopefully will find a way to pursue it successfully in some capacity. For now I will stick it out...I hope this wasn't too long winded.
I had a few moments where I contacted people and they downright refused to talk with me about a specific controversial topic and the article didn't get done. I vented out of frustration when I could have easily just kept trying to contact more.
What I did was lump every teacher in the area into my disappointment and that just isn't right or fair. For this an apology is definitely deserved. Teachers have been so important to me in my life, and some are still my friends and it would be devastating to lose that from idiotic comments I made out of frustration.
You forget sometime that people will read what you write and they will care and it took someone I respect and care for to point out my error and I would never want to insult or upset him in any way.
It also took another colleague of mine to point out how my jaded view of the world of journalism was a bit overboard because it isn't overly accurate.
I don't want to bore people with the details of disappointment in my life because I don't particularly like airing out my problems in public.
The job I have has been constantly promoted to me as a great thing and I feel obligated to feel privileged to have it...and yet I don't. Every time I chose a path I end up stepping back and second guess myself to the point where I convince myself that it's the wrong choice. Eventually I am going to have to just buckle down and tough it out.
Journalism (this might contradict what I said previously) does indeed offer a lot of positives. Being that I displayed disappointment about lack of balance, I myself was unbalanced in my approach. I was completely negative with no optimism.
Every day in journalism, you meet someone new, you hear a new perspective on life. You travel even if it within a small local area. You will become familiar with an entire area that otherwise you may have been unaware of.
My disappointment is likely due to the fact that I do feel boxed in because, well I haven't been anywhere. I probably shouldn't have read On the Road, Catcher in the Rye or other books about people who have no idea where their place in the world is.
I never want to be considered a jaded, bitter individual and I certainly don't wish to alienate anyone because of overt negativity. There is so much beauty in this world that to act nihilistic is to lose sight of the purpose of life.
The only thing I guess I should clarify is that I have realized that a career in print journalism as in the newspaper is likely not for me. I love writing and hopefully will find a way to pursue it successfully in some capacity. For now I will stick it out...I hope this wasn't too long winded.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Myths of journalism
"Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
- Hunter S. Thompson
I'm quickly learning that journalists are not exactly the revered and respected societal group that I once thought.
The reason I became interested in the vocation was to pursue the truth, an honourable goal. Sadly, it all seems to be about the quick hits of pseudo-information that passes as news.
Because of the value placed on ad revenue and getting the story first instead of getting it right, the news industry is in shambles...and that is not news. As someone in the business, albeit on the entry level, I am becoming more disenchanted with it every day.
Myth: The truth matters above all else.
Fact: The truth only matters if you get it first, and even then getting a story expediently, right or not is always preferred. A retraction, while messy, can always be printed and in most cases will go unnoticed anyway.
Myth: Balance is required.
Truth: The story is only as good as its sources. If one side of a story doesn't talk or is late getting back to a reporter, chances are the story will run as is. Who's fault is this? The reporter is working on a deadline and needs to file but the story will read like a one-sided editorial. In a medical story for instance, if you interview a patient who claims to be cured of an incurable disease from a naturopathic doctor, the reporter should ideally have a response from the medical community.
It's still a human interest story regardless, but since naturopathy isn't exactly recognized my the majority of M.D.'s it could be interpreted as 100% fact.
I wrote a story like this and couldn't get an M.D. on the line, not even a specialist until after the story went to print. I even pushed the story off a week to try further to get someone on the phone. When my call was finally returned it was the day the paper ran with the story. I was pleased with it, but it could have been better and more balanced
Myth: Journalists are noble creatures
Truth: Reporting in many cases is just a job
This is the worst realization I have ever come to and it's why I'm not as excited about my career path as I was a year ago. Much of what I write is mundane and of little interest to me but I tough it out anyway so I can collect a paycheck. I am ashamed to say that money is part of my motivation, or even on some days my primary motivation.
Investigative journalism is a dirty job, and if you're going to go that route in a community newspaper, chances are you'll piss off someone you care about. My values and my dedication align more with my friends and relationships than my job. I will not sacrifice friendships to get a story. If that means I end up writing fluffy feature pieces almost exclusively, so be it.
There seems to be little trust of journalists or newspapers now. With characters like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, why should the everyman trust what's written? Well I don't think the writer should be given carte blanche, but the cold shoulder is not the answer either. Question everything, but understand that the journalist has a job to do and when the whole story isn't there, try to ask why that is. Some blame should land on the writer, but not all...in some cases anyway.
Like with anything, you can find both good and bad in the world of professional journalism, you just need to dig. The worst part about it now is that there are very few in the mainstream that break convention, bend the rules and keep it interesting. Did Gonzo die with Hunter S. Thompson?
I'll rant on the news aesthetic a different time.
- Hunter S. Thompson
I'm quickly learning that journalists are not exactly the revered and respected societal group that I once thought.
The reason I became interested in the vocation was to pursue the truth, an honourable goal. Sadly, it all seems to be about the quick hits of pseudo-information that passes as news.
Because of the value placed on ad revenue and getting the story first instead of getting it right, the news industry is in shambles...and that is not news. As someone in the business, albeit on the entry level, I am becoming more disenchanted with it every day.
Myth: The truth matters above all else.
Fact: The truth only matters if you get it first, and even then getting a story expediently, right or not is always preferred. A retraction, while messy, can always be printed and in most cases will go unnoticed anyway.
Myth: Balance is required.
Truth: The story is only as good as its sources. If one side of a story doesn't talk or is late getting back to a reporter, chances are the story will run as is. Who's fault is this? The reporter is working on a deadline and needs to file but the story will read like a one-sided editorial. In a medical story for instance, if you interview a patient who claims to be cured of an incurable disease from a naturopathic doctor, the reporter should ideally have a response from the medical community.
It's still a human interest story regardless, but since naturopathy isn't exactly recognized my the majority of M.D.'s it could be interpreted as 100% fact.
I wrote a story like this and couldn't get an M.D. on the line, not even a specialist until after the story went to print. I even pushed the story off a week to try further to get someone on the phone. When my call was finally returned it was the day the paper ran with the story. I was pleased with it, but it could have been better and more balanced
Myth: Journalists are noble creatures
Truth: Reporting in many cases is just a job
This is the worst realization I have ever come to and it's why I'm not as excited about my career path as I was a year ago. Much of what I write is mundane and of little interest to me but I tough it out anyway so I can collect a paycheck. I am ashamed to say that money is part of my motivation, or even on some days my primary motivation.
Investigative journalism is a dirty job, and if you're going to go that route in a community newspaper, chances are you'll piss off someone you care about. My values and my dedication align more with my friends and relationships than my job. I will not sacrifice friendships to get a story. If that means I end up writing fluffy feature pieces almost exclusively, so be it.
There seems to be little trust of journalists or newspapers now. With characters like Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, why should the everyman trust what's written? Well I don't think the writer should be given carte blanche, but the cold shoulder is not the answer either. Question everything, but understand that the journalist has a job to do and when the whole story isn't there, try to ask why that is. Some blame should land on the writer, but not all...in some cases anyway.
Like with anything, you can find both good and bad in the world of professional journalism, you just need to dig. The worst part about it now is that there are very few in the mainstream that break convention, bend the rules and keep it interesting. Did Gonzo die with Hunter S. Thompson?
I'll rant on the news aesthetic a different time.
Monday, July 14, 2008
An outlet
The blogosphere is a mixed bag. Too often it's filled to the brim with celebrity crotch and pot shots or mundane recaps of the everyday routine. They act as little more than trashy entertainment or published diaries when there is an opportunity for a fair bit more.
No wonder the world of journalism looks at blogs as a waste of space...even though most online newspapers have blogs from their featured columnists.
A lot of bloggers are self-referenced "journalists" and this is not exactly accurate. No, you do not need to be employed by a paper or a magazine to be a journalist, but ideally you will have access to sources and not simply post an opinion.
Blogs provide a more open opportunity to editorialize content and that's not exactly journalism in the purest sense of the word. Remove opinion, replace it with researched facts and sources and then you can call it journalism but why bother?
The point being is that while the world of professional journalism offers little opportunity to express character or creativity, blogging is the opposite.
This is an outlet, a chance to vent, be creative and find a way to comment on life without being mundane. Not always the case, but blogging has that opportunity. As a journalist, I am excited about the prospect of voicing my opinions online as a break from what I consider the bland existence of "proper" reporting. It's fun on occasion, but much of it is terribly banal.
Welcome to my mind...tell me if it's boring.
No wonder the world of journalism looks at blogs as a waste of space...even though most online newspapers have blogs from their featured columnists.
A lot of bloggers are self-referenced "journalists" and this is not exactly accurate. No, you do not need to be employed by a paper or a magazine to be a journalist, but ideally you will have access to sources and not simply post an opinion.
Blogs provide a more open opportunity to editorialize content and that's not exactly journalism in the purest sense of the word. Remove opinion, replace it with researched facts and sources and then you can call it journalism but why bother?
The point being is that while the world of professional journalism offers little opportunity to express character or creativity, blogging is the opposite.
This is an outlet, a chance to vent, be creative and find a way to comment on life without being mundane. Not always the case, but blogging has that opportunity. As a journalist, I am excited about the prospect of voicing my opinions online as a break from what I consider the bland existence of "proper" reporting. It's fun on occasion, but much of it is terribly banal.
Welcome to my mind...tell me if it's boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)