![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 18th, 2007 09:08 pmIt's been a weird week, for some reason it feels like it's been really very long. I don't know why. Spent a full day of it whacked out with a bad reaction to the drug my rheumatologist prescribed. Bleh, that was nasty. Then went and registered for fall term classes. Maybe the weird time flow is because FGC night was changed. Am I really that regimented and addicted to the schedule? Don't answer that, I already know the answer. *hangs head*
BTW, there was some extra excitement at FGC this week. I'd go into detail but![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
baylorsr has already summed it up exceptionally over here. I think I'll go around calling her "Dame Baylor the Valiant" from now on. She'll probably throw cleaning supplies at my head. ;-)
Made an omelet for the first time ever for dinner this evening. It turned out pretty okay for a novice attempt. Will have to perfect both technique and recipe but it was quite tasty.
Have been typing up more of my great-great grandfather's life history. He spends a lot of time talking about building and contracting (he was a mason and then general contractor). Bad grammar aside, it's interesting to read his memories of a life lived at the turn of the twentieth century. I'd love to contrast some of his observations of larger national events to what later historians have concluded.
Caught an interview on the Colbert Report the other day. It was with an ... Andrew Keen, I believe. The gist of the interview was that Keen had written a book about how the internet was destroying culture. Of course, integral to his idea of what comprised culture was that art was created for payment and, hence, the creation of art for no payment -- the 'amateurization of culture' -- was a bad thing. Keen came off, in my opinion, as the worst kind of elitist snob. I've always been of the belief that art is art -- a picture is a picture, a story is a story -- whether or not a business transaction was involved in its creation. I would rather celebrate the fact that the internet and its corresponding technology allow "amateurs" to create art than attack it.
The internet is destroying culture. What the hell does that even mean? That's the kind of high-falutin, misbegotten, snobby statement that makes me want to bang my head against the wall. For the first time in the history of the world significant portions of the population have the freedom to dedicate their time to creative endeavors, that's an achievement that should be celebrated, not lambasted.
It's guys like that who give intellectuals a bad name.
Have discovered that I have at the very least 9 novels that have 'End of the World' plots. I do not find this surprising in the least. Note to self: When purchasing To Kill a Mockingbird remember to pick up copies of Max Brooks' zombie books.
BBCAmerica re-ran 'Boom Town' tonight. I have such a deep and abiding love for Mickey Smith. I want to have whole football teams (American or Rest of the World, doesn't matter) of his adorable babies. So Much Love!
BTW, there was some extra excitement at FGC this week. I'd go into detail but
baylorsr has already summed it up exceptionally over here. I think I'll go around calling her "Dame Baylor the Valiant" from now on. She'll probably throw cleaning supplies at my head. ;-)Made an omelet for the first time ever for dinner this evening. It turned out pretty okay for a novice attempt. Will have to perfect both technique and recipe but it was quite tasty.
Have been typing up more of my great-great grandfather's life history. He spends a lot of time talking about building and contracting (he was a mason and then general contractor). Bad grammar aside, it's interesting to read his memories of a life lived at the turn of the twentieth century. I'd love to contrast some of his observations of larger national events to what later historians have concluded.
Caught an interview on the Colbert Report the other day. It was with an ... Andrew Keen, I believe. The gist of the interview was that Keen had written a book about how the internet was destroying culture. Of course, integral to his idea of what comprised culture was that art was created for payment and, hence, the creation of art for no payment -- the 'amateurization of culture' -- was a bad thing. Keen came off, in my opinion, as the worst kind of elitist snob. I've always been of the belief that art is art -- a picture is a picture, a story is a story -- whether or not a business transaction was involved in its creation. I would rather celebrate the fact that the internet and its corresponding technology allow "amateurs" to create art than attack it.
The internet is destroying culture. What the hell does that even mean? That's the kind of high-falutin, misbegotten, snobby statement that makes me want to bang my head against the wall. For the first time in the history of the world significant portions of the population have the freedom to dedicate their time to creative endeavors, that's an achievement that should be celebrated, not lambasted.
It's guys like that who give intellectuals a bad name.
Have discovered that I have at the very least 9 novels that have 'End of the World' plots. I do not find this surprising in the least. Note to self: When purchasing To Kill a Mockingbird remember to pick up copies of Max Brooks' zombie books.
BBCAmerica re-ran 'Boom Town' tonight. I have such a deep and abiding love for Mickey Smith. I want to have whole football teams (American or Rest of the World, doesn't matter) of his adorable babies. So Much Love!
