I really enjoyed this one because its just funny. I would never be able to make something like this but I thought it was a cool idea.
I liked this one because of how it folds out into a poster you can hang. I like that its all horizontal.
This one is just has a cool design I thought. I don't think I'm going to do a calendar in a circle design because it seems overdone but I liked the simplicity of this design and the color scheme.
This one is cool because its all on one page and your weekends are highlighted and it doesn't prominently display the months. I also like that its vertical.
I liked these posters because of the simplicity of the design and how they work in a group of four on the wall. I think it would not work as well as a set of 12.
Hey class. So this would be my second post on digital storytelling and guess what? I still think those sites listed (hope I didn't offend you Jeff) are boring. And get this, when I had that optimistic pop of creative thinking flow through my brain after seeing the "I have crabs" story, I found a longer, deeper, also extremely interesting story in its own right, on the same site.
I picked this particular story because my friend morgan said, "hey look, this is my teacher, I think I have a girl crush on that woman". I chuckled, watched the video, and realized why Morgan has a girl crush on this woman; she is one amazing writer and one amazing storyteller.
...please turn your cell phones off and no crying babies...
This was just like the last video I wrote about, in that I sat through the whole thing and didn't for one second think about trying to find a different story. I was immersed in this one. Again, I know, with the whole obvious narrative; but in that respect, I think one of the reasons I found this story to be so interesting is because the plot is not obvious. You have the big, in the present, I got a book on my desk story, and the mini, in the past, moral issues, messed up students story.
So no, there were not multiple people narrating it, but I found it just as, or more interesting than the first story. This is partially because of the way she set up her story, described the characters, figuratively put your brain into this point of her life so you saw it. And I think, for one, that there were multiple people narrating. You got the funny, I like Grey's Anatomy Megan, the optimistic young teacher Megan, the struggling, conflicted teacher Megan, and the I am now the teacher I am Megan. And I say these are multiple narrators because these weren't non-tangible characters/strangers in her story, she was right there in front of all those people stepping into the character that was herself and playing that part so it was like there were four different people telling a story.
This is something you can't do with traditional storytelling in a book sense. The author can't write the same story, starting with one character and then suddenly making that character into someone else, changed, and then suddenly doing that again, and again, and again; without writing a book longer than 13 minutes worth of reading time.
Another advantage I see to this particular way of storytelling is I couldn't attend that live event (since it obviously was not originally digital storytelling), but that's not an issue because I can see the same facial expressions, hand gestures, hear the same tone of voice on the web. I like that. I have a busy schedule folks but I still like to enjoy the creative work of others in and out of my major.
And like I said before, I found colossal value in this story because I wasn't imagining it for myself; taking the words and creating a picture of my own, she was doing it for me. I appreciate that because it makes it more real. It makes this story soaking with adjectives and phrases and references real in the fact that this actually happened; it wouldn't be a true story if my brain was making up some guys named Dan and David who said fuck a lot and wore huge headphones because my brain would come up with something completely different than her experience. So by seeing this story online, representing a live performance, seeing her face and hands moving, I get her experience.
Storytelling, or at least the wikipedia essence of it. You've got a little bit of your history... some oral traditions... some aesthetics to follow. But you know what? I really just don't find wikipedia's definition interesting. It doesn't work for me.
Kind of just like how I found lonelygirl15 to be uninteresting. I blame it on her acting, maybe the "fractured narrative", or maybe it was just the fact that her boobs distracted me every time my eyes glanced at the screen.
Kind of just like how I found "What should I do with my life" to be uninteresting. I blame that on the monotone stranger speaking into the microphone for the voiceover, maybe the, again, "fractured narrative", or maybe it was just the fact that I was asking myself, "what should I do with my life?" if I seriously had sat through the whole thing.
Anyway, I happened to be at my friend's apartment and she happens to be a creative writing major. Nifty eh? She pointed out this website. Very cool by the way. So I picked this video that I would like to share...
First of all, Go Milwaukee! Second of all, I didn't think twice about trying to dig for another story. I didn't even know what the story was about before I thought, "I like this. This is going to be my topic."
"I masturbate, I masturbate, and I masturbate"
I truly enjoyed this story because, one, it was narrated by multiple people, two, its about something that is relative to my age group, three, it was funny, four, it was an obvious narrative (I seem to have figured out I like those better).
And I realized at some point, this is the longest conversation I've ever had with a woman that's not my mother.
And people might think, "it's only three minutes long, what's the value in that". But I think in and of itself there is a colossal amount of value. Yes, this is personal opinion, but seriously I just got done with the hardest day of my finals, in serious need of some whiskey and nicotine; but this made me laugh, it made me interested in actually writing this post which I didn't think my brain had the capacity to do tonight, and I find a tremendous amount of value in that.
This is it, I'm going to be having sex, I'm getting laid
Going back to web 2.0 storytelling and traditional storytelling, I've found another plus for the web. You can sit down in front of your computer, pull up some short storytelling clips of something you're in to, and laugh... or cry... or whatever mood you feel like being in. I'm not the person who has a stack of books with short stories, so the web is a much better place for me to go.
Fake it till you make it
On top of that, you get the hand motions in the video. Yes, I can read a short story and somewhere in my deep down imagination station, create the character the story is describing, but it's not the same. With this particular tab in digital storytelling, you get these emotions pushed on to you, you don't have to think, "well hey there's this dorky college kid, okay, and he's never been laid, okay, so he may look like this, okay, and he's facing this stern faced woman, okay" etc. It's already there for you. You're getting someone's, or multiple in this case, interpretation of the story, not just your own. And especially in this case, the interpretation of many people which I think is catchy and interesting.
So this week we’ve been looking into web 2.0 storytelling. My first post I wrote about whether I thought this new type of storytelling is, in my opinion, actually storytelling. This post will be about what web 2.0 storytellers can do that conventional storytellers can not.
First of all, my fellow new media writers, the biggest difference I see are videos. Any book, children story, short story, poem, etc. can have illustrations. These are intriguing, they help people visualize the story, but it is not the same as including a video in a virtual story. Whether it’s a written story with an embedded video or a story ‘embedded’ into a video, this type of media can bring new and different interactions into play.
Side note - so this isn't the only way you could go, I was also talking about storytelling as in reading poems, reciting short stories, and stuff along those lines.
For example, children like illustrated books, but they don’t really interact with them from my experience. The interaction I’m talking about happens when they watch, for instance, an Elmo video and Elmo asks them to dance along with him. Reading a book about Elmo dancing does not call for the child to dance. It’s not the same type of interaction. Having this type of web storytelling can be interactive, can add different graphical elements like flash, and can call for more attention. A video can compliment a story and conventional storytelling usually can’t include a video.
On the flip side, web 2.0 storytellers can include a video with their story, but they can’t do live performance. Sure, they can record themselves telling their poem or short story along with have the text on the web, but conventional storytellers can literally gather a group of people, recite their story, maybe have a screen in the background with images, and get the audiences’ attention that way.
This for instance is a live comedian performance by my friend Victor which I consider storytelling. Yes it is on the web, but is it as funny on the web? Do you get the ambiance of strangers, beer, and a stage? No.
Another thing that web 2.0 storytellers can expect when it comes to video, images, and live performances is the personal environment in which they are telling their story. A person on the computer can be at home, at a coffee shop, somewhere where they feel comfortable, and fully enjoy the extent of the story. They can be by themselves, they can be with friends, they can bring it anywhere, but it is the comfortable personal ambiance and portability that sets web 2.0 storytelling apart from the conventional storytelling.
On another flip side, conventional storytelling in the context of live performance or video and images brings you to, most likely, a comfortable audience. When I think of going to a live performance I take the location into consideration. I wouldn’t go somewhere I thought would be uncomfortable. The plus side to the conventional storytelling would be that it brings you out of your personal element into a new place and prepares you with open ears to hear the story. You can’t bring the story with you, watch it with someone later, but I feel like when you go to a live performance it is like you take in more details than if you can watch and re-watch the story on the web.
So basically, I feel like both the web 2.0 stories and the conventional stories have equal pros and cons. I feel like in both contexts you can basically do the same things just in different ways. Depending on what you’re looking for or what you’re doing, you might chose either one. Conventional storytellers can’t expect to get the visual aspect all the time and web 2.0 storytellers can’t expect the full on effects of a live performance.
After readingthis website, Web 2.0 Storytelling, the emergence of a new genre, I had to think about storytelling for a second. Thinking back, I've really always thought storytelling was more of a verbal process a mother does with her child before she goes to sleep; more intimate. Telling a story just strikes me as childlike.
But Web 2.0 has taken this image of storytelling and twisted it into something almost completely opposite. Instead of the intimate closeness you would feel to your mother before bedtime, Web 2.0 expands the notion of storytelling into basically more than any of us can imagine or write about.
For instance, I've learned that stories don't necessarily need an ending. It seems that with Web 2.0 once person can take a picture and then a different person can comment on it and then a different person will comment on that comment and then a different person will make a whole new comment. So it really is like a never ending story with people giving feedback and opinions all the time.
The one thing that struck me really, was not the websites with the virtual, almost interactive, multimedia storytelling like this one, but was actually taking into consideration that tweets can turn into stories and giving a classic book author a facebook page and considering that a story of him.
But I looked at these sites and I really do agree with the thought that, yes, Shakespeare facebook and Alice in Wonderland tweets may be a legitimate story in someone else's eyes; most definitely not a traditional one but from what I've seen these sites and multimedia things do include all the ingredients to be a story, minus the ending sometimes (but really you should always anticipate one, it just may not be there anytime soon).
Personally though, think that this type of storytelling is a little on the line though. Having a Shakespeare facebook is hard to believe as storytelling because one; it has limitations including that it was photoshoped so the story doesn't really have a beginning. two; there isn't a substantial plot or some sort of writing device that draws you in. Honestly I just think it's too "on the surface" meaning it doesn't have enough punch or plot to make me want to keep reading.
That's the whole point of reading a book or hearing a story; so you get into it and want to know what happens. But really, I don't care what happens to facebook Shakespeare.
I think my final opinion comes down to believing that multimedia and digital storytelling over the web counts, commenting on multimedia and digital storytelling counts too. Multiple authors count. But writing a personal page to a dead playwright is more like creating a personal sim, you'll just make them do inconsequential things, not preplaning some ultimate destruction or something to make the plot interesting. Same goes for the Alice In Wonderland tweets. I find them slightly more engaging but I feel like they are too sporadic to really give you any substance.
That's what I want in storytelling; substance, something for my brain to grab onto and kn aw on a little bit. This is why I liked the mini virtual storytelling. They were short, sweet, and engaging.
So to wrap it up, I found it an interesting theory, in my opinion, that some of those sites could count as storytelling but like I said, it was very interesting to take a look at it like that. It really didn't change my notion of storytelling dramatically. I still think bedtime stories are the ultimate storytelling. But what pushed my narrow minded idea of storytelling outward was thinking about a virtual short story mini movie or something that ended before it ended and then a huge amount of people commented to make their own ending. Now that would be cool, I would consider that the storytelling they were describing that in the a new genre page. It's on the web, it is surrounded by an active participating community, and it has many authors and multiple interesting endings that would engage my attention. As for anything else, I think it's just slightly too outside the box to be considered storytelling.
So Across the Airwaves is a blog about recent/not recent tv shows that have made an impact on... something. That something may be a group of writers, a group of creators, a group of crazy teentastic vampire fans, etc. I really like his blog for one because of the flow.
There is definite structure; you have the intro of the show, a little background, and the integration of the effects of the show on the outside. I find his content interesting because it seems like he points out these little plot things or character things that make these big effects that I would really never realize until someone pointed it out.
But anyway, the color scheme. I like the layout he chose. I'm a big fan of circles and the pre-designed layout has a good color scheme. I feel like the colors definitely go along with his content because there is always a level of mystery/surprise/drama in tv shows and I get that feeling from it. My only issue with the color scheme is that sometimes when I read online, I highlight the lines of text to make it easier to read and I could not do that with his blog because the background of the highlight is a light color but the original white words don't change to a dark color so it makes it impossible to read. But all and all, good color scheme, relevant vibe, I dig it.
Lots of pictures. Dan uses lots of pictures. I love it. He has pictures that have to do with what he's talking about and he has pictures that share a quality with what he's talking about. It makes his posts visually diverse. Not only that, but the different visual ideas expands the brain when your reading it. When reading a blog I feel like people just take what they get and by including these semi-off-exact-topic pictures it will lead the brain into a new direction while still keep them hooked on what your saying and therefore making the post more fun to read.
Lack of emphasis. I didn't really see any use of italics. I'm not sure Dan needs them in his blog because he doesn't really get worked up about stuff. He does bold things in some places which I think is probably enough. I feel like all he needs is to differentiate between the regular text and the word he wants to point out and the bolding it does that. On the other hand, I would like to see something that works him up, where he needs italics. There may be a few instances when he talks about how this or that tv show effects writing or when he talked about time slots in his first post and how he doesn't know if he can get a job in tv. I think that's something that needs emphasis.
Da Font. So, as I've said before, I think most blogs need a san serif modern font. In Dan's case I think the san serif works extremely well with his subject matter. There was one instance where he used a serif font and it looked completely clunky and didn't have the readability his other posts had. I felt like it was a big difference.
Are you witty enough? As I was reading through Dan's blog I felt that this shows the difference between my blog and his and how that relates to Trevor's. As I was saying in my previous post, I feel like Trevor needs a little umph, something more. My blog, I feel that it is natural and relevant to give a lot of umph. In Dan's blog, I don't feel that a lot of umph is necessary, I actually think he has a very good balanced between the two. There is sometimes an underlying sarcastic tone or even an underlying tone of excitement that makes reading his blog more enjoyable. You can really get the feel of his tone throughout each post even though it's minimal. That small tone that fluctuates throughout his blog makes his blog interesting despite what the content is. It's like a buffet table, I get a little bit here, a lot a bit there, and it's delicious.
I think that ending comment said enough. Out of five, I give Dan a 4.5, more out of personal opinion than complete objectivity. It's maybe not my flavor of tea meaning I like tea so yeah I'll take a cup, but some variation to the subject matter, maybe the amount of underlying tone, something that would probably make me want to read this on a regular basis. Right now I think I could look at it every once in a while and scan the titles for a show that I'm interested in. But as a blog I find it very nice. It's got a nice flow of information, it's got great and interesting pictures, it works well for what he's going for. I like it.
So after reading this article on Yelp.com, you really have to ask yourself if this website that makes or breaks a business is really everything it seems to be. In the ideal world, Yelp is there for customers, consumers, and your average Joe to visit when he or she wishes to write their opinion on a specific place for everyone in the world with an internet connection to read.
The problem this article brought up was, can Yelp be trusted? As I'm sure you read, mom and pop stores have reported basically harassment from Yelp. Why? For the money!!! It's always about the money. Basically, if you need a recap, these moms and pops are saying they get constant calls from Yelp employees stating that they have a few bad reviews and for 299$ a month they could either move those posts or remove them altogether.
The interesting part was that after saying no to these Yelp representatives, more bad comments seemed to show up on their Yelp page. Well isn't that just the darndest coincidence? As the article reads...
Because they were often asked to advertise soon after receiving negative reviews, many of these business owners believe Yelp employees use such reviews as sales leads. Several, including John, even suspect Yelp employees of writing them. Indeed, Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. And in at least one documented instance, a business owner who refused to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee.
So this is obviously just another one of those money hungry purple mom and pop business people eaters stomping around town strangling the breath out of small businesses. The part that makes me really angry, if any of this is true, is that these employees call to get businesses to advertise aka pay to get their bad comments taken down; if they don't, Yelp supposedly and probably has their own employees write more bad reviews so maybe next time they'll change their answer. Well, as the article points out, not all businesses are ready to believe that Yelp can strangle them and they keep saying no, trying to survive in a tumbling (hopefully slightly stabilizing) economy. Then at the end of it, since they don't pay to advertise, their store goes out of business because the entire world checks Yelp before setting foot anywhere.
So either bow to the review god or walk the plank to financial disaster. So in the credibility closet, based off of this article, Yelp is not a credible source of consumer reviews because they care more about money than honestly trying to help the community venture somewhere nice, with good service and good people and good atmosphere. Also, the reviews cannot be counted as credible anymore because Yelp may pay people to write them.
Even not based on the article I question the credibility of the reviews because say I have a friend named Bart. Bart works at a tanning salon, flaming, my best guy friend so I worry about his existence. Wanda is the twat that works down the street at the competitor tanning salon, hate her guts. In a totally unrelated circumstance, the two find themselves at the same store, trying to buy the same sweater. Bart gets there first and Wanda is furious. So to get Bart in trouble at work she writes a nasty review using his name and the name of the place. On top of that, she makes an alias and does the same thing.
Even though this had nothing to do with tanning, service at the salon, anything at all, the business is still going to take a toll because of a personal vendetta. I feel like people may do this more often than we might think which makes, minus the whole article deal-io, Yelp not necessarily the best place for reference.
I'm going to stick to the old school; word of mouth.
