Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ] |
| Subject: Re: Reading, A Lost Art | |
|
Author: JIM |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:50:47 06/11/01 Mon In reply to: TechnoAtheist 's message, "Re: Reading, A Lost Art" on 16:55:51 06/11/01 Mon >Dickens was interesting because he was the first guy >to really create the soap opera. He wrote long drawn >out serials that he modifed based on reader reaction >(puts a whole new twist on his works, donnit?) > >I really wish that someone put together one of his >books along with the letters that were written in >response to each chapter. > >Personally, I don't like Dickens, but I get what he >did. AOL. I read "A Christmas Carol" when I was young, and liked it. Unfortunately, since then Dickens has been associated in my mind with a pushy ex-girlfriend. >>Well, I've never been a big fan of Hemmingway. I >>still don't give a crap about him, no matter what era >>he's from. > >Hemmingway did the same thing as Dickens, he was just >more direct about it and didn't really give a crap >about what his audience thought. Which is the right attitude, I think, but I still feel about Hemingway the way I feel about Heinlein. Unnnnngggh. >>Not too long ago I was bored (this was at work, of >>course) and so ran a search for stories in Yahoo. >>Actually, not so much a search as clicking through the >>categories they have set up. No Hydrogen Guy, > >uy">Well, that's changed. Yabbut how many people search for that phrase? I've gotten a few hits from search engines picking up really outlandish phrases, but I wouldn't say that they've provided a significant increase in the readership. >As for the others, it >helps to have A LOT of good material, and more >importantly hitting at the right point. I agree, even though I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. >>There's much more chaff than wheat out there. Out of >>the potential millions of webcomics out there, I've >>got ten that I faithfully read every day. > >I've got 20-40 depending on the day, but I'll concede >that point. About 30, personally. >>So tell me: what are the other nine hundred >>thousand nine hundred ninety doing when their time >>could be better spent devising new and interesting >>ways to win Darwin Awards? IMHO, of course. > >Like myself, they are performing acts of digital >masterbation. Performing a waste of time for my own >short term pleasure. (Wow, you ought to see the >expression on your face when you read that...) Actually, it's the perfect description. >>This is the crux of the matter, and one of the major >>mental blocks I can't seem to get by when I think of >>updating my site. Damn near everyone has a website >>with their little fifteen megabytes of fame. What >>makes my particular contribution valuable enough to >>innundate surfers around the globe with yet another >>link? What if I, unknowingly, am part of the chaff? >>Worse yet, what if I carry the metaphor too far and >>become moldy wheat? > >Then you need to answer that question with the same >answer as everyone else did. Why the hell not? Precisely. As we often say - maybe sometimes to convince ourselves as much as anyone else - we're doing this for our own enjoyment. Everyone knows that the two people most excited about the Ford/HG cross-over are me and ~Steve-o. If you enjoy writing/drawing/verb-of-your-choice-ing the thing, who cares if most of the rest of the web, or the world, thinks its chaff? The most important thing is making something you're satisfied with. >To wave the flag of the great unwashed, I have >absolutely no idea if anyone enjoys this or even why >the hell I'm doing it. Although I make great >statements like "I don't care if anyone reads this", I >lie alot. I really do care that a number of people >read this and either tell me it sucks, or it's ok, or >even it's good (but those people have problems typing >when they are that drunk). The real problem is getting >exposure. I want to make a joke about exposing myself here, but I don't want to belittle your point. Oops. >Getting back to one of my original points, a site like >Sluggy Freelance, or User Friendly has a big win in >that folks can print out funny strips and stick them >on their wall, or email them to each other or >whatever. A few of those folks will then read more >strips to see if there are more naked chicks or rabid >staplers or what-have-you. Hell, it's what made >Dilbert so damn popular. True. That's one of the fundamental limitations presented by the pure-text format. Another related one is that it is truly easier to catch and hold someone's attention with a mix of text and images than with text alone. Whereas we have to expend two or three sentences on, say, a piece of equipment to give the reader the general idea, Pete Abrams can precisely define a Dimensional Flux Agitator with a few lines and some shading. The latter is easier to process, more memorable, and more efficient. Another thing cartoonists can do which adds to the memorability factor is site gags. Good lord, I don't know how many really funny jokes I haven't been able to do because the humour doesn't survive the transition from image to picture. In a comic strip or movie, something like that can be tucked down in a corner or in the background and doesn't distract from the main thrust. Text is pretty linear, so anything you spend time describing automatically comes up front and center. On the other hand, some things we do in text would be impossible or very difficult in a more visual, tackable format. Eg Reaper's mode of communication, Grayhound's chatroom scenes, or the little Chimera subterfuge revealed in this week's BGBM. What I mean is, one way we can try to overcome the limitations of text on the web is by using it to our advantage. Okay, I've rambled off the point, but it's something that TA's initial news-item made me think about. >>But how many truly >>classic works have been created in the past decade? > >Dunno. It's only been ten years, and I refuse to >believe that anything written less than twenty is a >classic(although The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy >comes really damn close). I'm pretty sure that the Guide will be considered a classic for some time to come. For no other reason that it was the first honest-to-goodness sf comedy to be widely recognized. >>The past three decades? Out of how many writers? Now >>compare that ratio with, say, the late eighteen >>hundreds/early ninteens. Sad, isn't it? > >Nope, the signal to noise level is the same, the >difference is that we've had a hundred years to burn >or bury the dross. True, dat. On the CBC classical station, the morning show's been doing specials Thursdays on composers who were decently-well known in their own eras, but today are all but forgotten. Guys who were contemporaries of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Haydn... a lot of their stuff wasn't bad, but the massive names of the era have just utterly eclipsed them 2-300 years later. >>the number of hits a site gets is no indication of worth >>at all. > >well then why am i addicted to checking my site >counter?!?! Cause like me, you're a raving egomaniac. >In high school, a teacher asked us to write a story of >what life will be like twenty years, at the turn of >the mmillenniuumm. I said that we'd be wearing blue >jeans, watching TV, and driving pretty much the same >cars we were then. Sadly, I was right. Proved you were smarter than most of the planet, probably. >A hundred years from now? Blue jeans, cars, TV, nation >states (slightly modified from the current), war, >famine, hunger, limited space programs, rising >population, and a bunch of re-creationists doing Civil >War battles. Well, s/TV/WebTV/ and s/Civil/Vietnam/ probably, but that's just details. JIM [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Reading, A Lost Art | ~Steve-o | 23:37:15 06/11/01 Mon |
| Re: Reading, A Lost Art | TechnoAtheist | 08:27:16 06/12/01 Tue |
|
||
| Re: Reading, A Lost Art | Hetta | 11:31:13 06/12/01 Tue |
|
||
|
Forum timezone: GMT-8 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |