If you know anything about the journalism community, and especially the journalism education community, then you hold with The New York Times with a sort of fearful reverence. It is upheld as the hallmark of good journalism: of storytelling skill, of photography, of coverage, of just being cool.
Because if you're Jenifer Aniston, it doesn't matter what you've done lately. You're Jenifer Aniston. Do you know what I mean? Say the Washington Post or the LA Times gradually inched out the NY Times in coverage. I really don't think it would matter. It's The New York Times. Good luck, Washington.
Stobbe tells us this a lot: read the Times. It is GOSPEL. I can't wait for you kids to hear from the Times reporter. They're the best.
Are they? I wouldn't know. What I do know is that when I even read the online version, I feel hipper. The writing style is Jenifer Aniston-like, in that when you read it, you sort of think in the back of your reluctant self-conscious: I wish I lived in New York.
And why should they not flaunt it? No matter how many designers or illicit babies come out of LA, the Californians know secretly that New York will always beat them. Think now, off the top of your head: how many books have you read and movies have you watched in the last year set in New York? In LA?
Despite the fact that LA is where the movies are made, the movies will always be set in New York, and this is why: It's New York. Maybe I should work on my descriptive abilities, but there it is. It is one of the most identifiable cities in the world, one of the most photographed. Just the words sound exciting, sound trendsetting.
This is the advantage The New York Times has. In a city where the fashion, the restaurants and the sight-seeing insist on being the best, why shouldn't the newspaper also be?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Beatles paradigm
I've been listening to the Beatles lately (okay, for the last 10 minutes) and they've got me thinking. Everyone raves about them, and they're pretty much the best rock band of all time, so they must do something right. But except for Eleanor Rigby (which is amazing) I'm finding it all a little boring.
But you could say that for a lot of really great art forms. Ever found a Shakespeare drama very run-of-the-mill or a Jane Austen love story predictable? Yeah. Me too.
The difference is that usually, when you read something and think: "I've seen five other stories just like this," you're reading a copy, something somone made up in the spirit of something they've already heard of: you know, Sex and the City or something.
BUT when you're bored by Shakespeare, it's because everyone else is imitating him. His art isn't trite because he's trite, it's because he was the first one to ever write a story like that and everyone else liked it so much they decided to make about 100 remakes of Romeo and Juliette, and Hollywood has never quite got it out of their system.
I guess that's why they still make us read it in school, and why the Beatles are the greatest, yada yada yada. But it's still kind of disappointing to me. Why do the great ones have to be the boring ones?
In the end, I suppose we should blame the imitators. There's really nothing wrong with imitation, I hate to say, and that's where you've got to start. But I have always held that it's best to be original. You know, write off-beat stories about spinster siblings or something equally nuts.
What am I trying to say? Create your own classics.
But you can't honestly bash anything involving Colin Firth, now can you?
But you could say that for a lot of really great art forms. Ever found a Shakespeare drama very run-of-the-mill or a Jane Austen love story predictable? Yeah. Me too.
The difference is that usually, when you read something and think: "I've seen five other stories just like this," you're reading a copy, something somone made up in the spirit of something they've already heard of: you know, Sex and the City or something.
BUT when you're bored by Shakespeare, it's because everyone else is imitating him. His art isn't trite because he's trite, it's because he was the first one to ever write a story like that and everyone else liked it so much they decided to make about 100 remakes of Romeo and Juliette, and Hollywood has never quite got it out of their system.
I guess that's why they still make us read it in school, and why the Beatles are the greatest, yada yada yada. But it's still kind of disappointing to me. Why do the great ones have to be the boring ones?
In the end, I suppose we should blame the imitators. There's really nothing wrong with imitation, I hate to say, and that's where you've got to start. But I have always held that it's best to be original. You know, write off-beat stories about spinster siblings or something equally nuts.
What am I trying to say? Create your own classics.
But you can't honestly bash anything involving Colin Firth, now can you?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Unconventionalism: the new black
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article4653187.ece
I love stuff like this. Which would you rather read: this article, or a piece that begins: "In an era where the most important aspect of fashion is a statement-making bag, many women-" You lost me at "in an era".
Do you know the percentage of high school journalism advisers that would take one look at that piece and say: "Are you kidding me?" (I'm not trashing Stobbe, he'd love it). Yet one of the most prosperous newspapers in the world publishes it.
This is because The Times understand unconventionism. It's a long, many prefixed and suffixed word (in fact, I'm not sure it's a word) but it's also a concept that's a defined part of being successful.
The power to make the public read, watch or hear something and think "man, this is weird" is indeed a potent one. About 95% of our lives is doing and saying the same things we have always done or said. Ideas that are new and even quirky break up the monotony and save us from the properness of our lifestyles.
The people at the forefront of unconventionalism were teased as kids, I just know it. It takes a touch of unusualness to personify a handbag or write a screenplay about a nerd named Napolean. But think about it: the people who weren't teased as kids, it doesn't mean they are more normal.
They just hide it better.
The unconventional article, movie, opinion, connects us to our own hidden quirks. Being a little on the odd side is very tangibly human. This is why I appreciate people who aren't afraid to admit it. Like President Bush. Or Cher.
Those quirky people are probably even more self confident than the rest of us. (Okay, except for President Bush). That is why they are the world's entertainers, thinkers, trailblazers.
Just don't tell Bag I told you guys.
I love stuff like this. Which would you rather read: this article, or a piece that begins: "In an era where the most important aspect of fashion is a statement-making bag, many women-" You lost me at "in an era".
Do you know the percentage of high school journalism advisers that would take one look at that piece and say: "Are you kidding me?" (I'm not trashing Stobbe, he'd love it). Yet one of the most prosperous newspapers in the world publishes it.
This is because The Times understand unconventionism. It's a long, many prefixed and suffixed word (in fact, I'm not sure it's a word) but it's also a concept that's a defined part of being successful.
The power to make the public read, watch or hear something and think "man, this is weird" is indeed a potent one. About 95% of our lives is doing and saying the same things we have always done or said. Ideas that are new and even quirky break up the monotony and save us from the properness of our lifestyles.
The people at the forefront of unconventionalism were teased as kids, I just know it. It takes a touch of unusualness to personify a handbag or write a screenplay about a nerd named Napolean. But think about it: the people who weren't teased as kids, it doesn't mean they are more normal.
They just hide it better.
The unconventional article, movie, opinion, connects us to our own hidden quirks. Being a little on the odd side is very tangibly human. This is why I appreciate people who aren't afraid to admit it. Like President Bush. Or Cher.
Those quirky people are probably even more self confident than the rest of us. (Okay, except for President Bush). That is why they are the world's entertainers, thinkers, trailblazers.
Just don't tell Bag I told you guys.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
I just KNEW the technology would be over my head...
I have gotten responses saying that the "respond to email" function is not, well, functioning. Well, I don't really know, I wouldn't be the person to ask... But it is my blog, so, I guess, you could try just commenting? I clicked "open commenting" so I would think you should be able to. But I don't really know.
It's not really my department.
It's not really my department.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Real beginnings, this time
Maybe this time, someone will read it. I certainly hope so. If not, I can blame it all on Nad.
It is his fault, after all.
His blog was so good I got all caddy and high-school-girl-like. I want one. You can tell what I'm thinking because it's in italics. Crafty, yes?
I don't know quite what I will discuss here. I know no one wants to read about my story because no one wants to hear about it in real life. I am not offended. S'ok.
Here is a good thought:
When do things come to a head for people? I like that term but it's not very expressive. A climax, I guess I mean. A turning point. When can you see your whole life laid out before or behind you?
For me, I would say maybe getting baptized. The sentence I thought of then and haven't forgotten was This is the rest of my life. I like that sentence, partially because Stobbe would hate it so much.
For further notice: this blog shall probably contain mass references to Greg Stobbe, Candian, genius. I trash him a lot. It's only because I love him and he has made me the writer I am. And he nags. So don't go thinking I'm a Stobbe hater. Nope.
Back from tangent: For Peter, it's a big big fight with Sophie, it's breaking his leg, a lot of things. He has his much later in life. But this 'to a head' concept isn't a one time thing, I guess. There's a lot.
I like them because I think they say a lot about people. Do you have the perception to step back and see your life eclipsing? I really don't know.
Some people never have them. They go through their life like a monopoly game. One box to another, don't pause, don't go past. Pass go, collect $200. Don't petition to raise minimum wage, and don't sue for speeding tickets in the Go lane. Just plod on through. Don't see when the rest of your life is poking your ribs, when a drastic decision is staring at you in your cereal bowl.
Pass Go. Collect $200.
I don't want my life to be like that. I want to understand what I'm living.
I think that's why, when I play Monopoly, I spend a lot of time in jail.
It is his fault, after all.
His blog was so good I got all caddy and high-school-girl-like. I want one. You can tell what I'm thinking because it's in italics. Crafty, yes?
I don't know quite what I will discuss here. I know no one wants to read about my story because no one wants to hear about it in real life. I am not offended. S'ok.
Here is a good thought:
When do things come to a head for people? I like that term but it's not very expressive. A climax, I guess I mean. A turning point. When can you see your whole life laid out before or behind you?
For me, I would say maybe getting baptized. The sentence I thought of then and haven't forgotten was This is the rest of my life. I like that sentence, partially because Stobbe would hate it so much.
For further notice: this blog shall probably contain mass references to Greg Stobbe, Candian, genius. I trash him a lot. It's only because I love him and he has made me the writer I am. And he nags. So don't go thinking I'm a Stobbe hater. Nope.
Back from tangent: For Peter, it's a big big fight with Sophie, it's breaking his leg, a lot of things. He has his much later in life. But this 'to a head' concept isn't a one time thing, I guess. There's a lot.
I like them because I think they say a lot about people. Do you have the perception to step back and see your life eclipsing? I really don't know.
Some people never have them. They go through their life like a monopoly game. One box to another, don't pause, don't go past. Pass go, collect $200. Don't petition to raise minimum wage, and don't sue for speeding tickets in the Go lane. Just plod on through. Don't see when the rest of your life is poking your ribs, when a drastic decision is staring at you in your cereal bowl.
Pass Go. Collect $200.
I don't want my life to be like that. I want to understand what I'm living.
I think that's why, when I play Monopoly, I spend a lot of time in jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
