The blogging challenge is officially done!! Thanks to everyone who participated. This has encouraged me to try to blog more often...because it turns out I have lots of things to say!
So, here's a little survey for you guys to fill out. You can either reply in comments, or make a new post on your blog.
Would you do WLBC again?
Would you want to make it a tradition? If so, how often would you want to do it? (Annual, bi-annual, monthly, etc.)
How long should the blogging go for? (A week, two weeks, a month, etc.)
Should you have to blog daily, or once every two days, or once a week?
Has this challenge helped you increase the quality of your blog? If so, how?
That's all. Thanks for filling it out! Maybe I'll reply to it myself later.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday: Auditions and the good old days
The last day of WLBC! We made it! I'll write a "closing notes" (as well as a survey) post tomorrow, so I'll just make this a quick "yay": Yay!
Now, onto today's post. I actually have two things to talk about, but I'm not sure which one to go for first. So...I'll flip this pencil. *flips* Ok, auditions it is.
The next play our teen acting group will be doing is The Tempest (which I might blog about later, but I want to keep this short). And this time there'll be auditions. I'm really worried, because, although they changed two roles to girl roles (so now there are three), one is already taken, so that just leaves two. And there are, what, eight girls auditioning? AND we can't play for guys. So...seriously nerve-racking. Good luck to the people auditioning, even though 99% don't read my blog!
The second thing I wanted to mention was that I've been re-reading a lot of my early posts from 2005. It's funny how my writing style changed in three years. I think back then I viewed a blog like a diary: where you write about stuff that happened to you...or, failing that, you write about current interests. I talked a lot about Myst, and internet adoptables, but you somehow never really found out what I was like. What I thought about the world, or WHY I liked the Myst series so much (hmm...that could make an interesting post, actually). That's what a blog is to me now.
So...what about you? What makes a blog interesting for you, and (if you have a blog) how is your style different now compared to your earlier entries?
Well, I'm done with the blogging challenge! See you tomorrow, where I talk about celebratory things and plan for future challenges. =)
Now, onto today's post. I actually have two things to talk about, but I'm not sure which one to go for first. So...I'll flip this pencil. *flips* Ok, auditions it is.
The next play our teen acting group will be doing is The Tempest (which I might blog about later, but I want to keep this short). And this time there'll be auditions. I'm really worried, because, although they changed two roles to girl roles (so now there are three), one is already taken, so that just leaves two. And there are, what, eight girls auditioning? AND we can't play for guys. So...seriously nerve-racking. Good luck to the people auditioning, even though 99% don't read my blog!
The second thing I wanted to mention was that I've been re-reading a lot of my early posts from 2005. It's funny how my writing style changed in three years. I think back then I viewed a blog like a diary: where you write about stuff that happened to you...or, failing that, you write about current interests. I talked a lot about Myst, and internet adoptables, but you somehow never really found out what I was like. What I thought about the world, or WHY I liked the Myst series so much (hmm...that could make an interesting post, actually). That's what a blog is to me now.
So...what about you? What makes a blog interesting for you, and (if you have a blog) how is your style different now compared to your earlier entries?
Well, I'm done with the blogging challenge! See you tomorrow, where I talk about celebratory things and plan for future challenges. =)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Saturday: The big picture
I've always been competitive. I compare a lot of things, and usually it's fun, but sometimes I compare myself to other people.
I remember I used to worry I'd be the last among my friends to lose all my baby teeth. Ok, I only have 4 baby teeth left...if I lose this one during our vacation I'll have caught up with so and so... Ok, maybe not quite like that, but it was close.
And then...we all finished with our baby teeth. And my competitiveness seems really silly now. I lost track of the big picture: that in the end most of us won't remember how we lost our baby teeth anyway, and we'll all be adults with normal adult teeth. Does it matter who lost what when?
Now that I'm almost done growing, I compare heights a lot. Oh no, I'm shorter than X but at least I'm taller than Y...and I'm not sure about Z, but I think... But, you know, who cares? The height thing will probably seem just as silly in a few years.
I'm sure there are other things like that too. Friends on Facebook. Or how many commenters I have. I generally don't do that, but I can't help it sometimes. But I need to realize that even if I don't have a lot of readers/followers/commenters, there are still people who read my blog. And not just random people, either...they're my friends. I think that's better than a lot of internet strangers.
I remember I used to worry I'd be the last among my friends to lose all my baby teeth. Ok, I only have 4 baby teeth left...if I lose this one during our vacation I'll have caught up with so and so... Ok, maybe not quite like that, but it was close.
And then...we all finished with our baby teeth. And my competitiveness seems really silly now. I lost track of the big picture: that in the end most of us won't remember how we lost our baby teeth anyway, and we'll all be adults with normal adult teeth. Does it matter who lost what when?
Now that I'm almost done growing, I compare heights a lot. Oh no, I'm shorter than X but at least I'm taller than Y...and I'm not sure about Z, but I think... But, you know, who cares? The height thing will probably seem just as silly in a few years.
I'm sure there are other things like that too. Friends on Facebook. Or how many commenters I have. I generally don't do that, but I can't help it sometimes. But I need to realize that even if I don't have a lot of readers/followers/commenters, there are still people who read my blog. And not just random people, either...they're my friends. I think that's better than a lot of internet strangers.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday: Recycled content
Don't worry, this isn't going to be a post about something I've already talked about.
Today I'm actually going to post about recycled content.
When you read a label that says "80 percent recycled content", you think, "Yay! It's environmental!" But what if you read that in a book review?
That was the title of a review on Amazon.com. I'm reading the book ("Juggler of Worlds" by Larry Niven and Edward Lerner) in question, so I've decided to write about that today.
What, exactly, is a book with "recycled content"? In my case, it's a book with certain plot points that have been used before, in short stories (and occasionally other books) by the same author. As in, the actual plots of the short stories. In LN's defense, he did write those parts from different perspectives than the first time, which seemed to change it enough, plus the way he fit all those different plots into a whole was interesting. But still, it's recycled.
When I heard it the first time, two thoughts came to mind: "That's kinda lazy", and "So am I supposed to read all those stories first?" That's my question today: would a new reader want to read the original stories first, and then the book? Or just the book itself?
On one hand, if you just read the book you get the end result either way, and with less effort because most of the plot points are shortened. But that way you probably won't want to read the stories afterward, because the endings have already been spoiled. And not just that: since the plot is condensed, it's not as full and interesting in the book as it would have been in the story.
On the other hand, if you read the stories first, then the book won't be so interesting. And, again, since all the side-plot things will be shortened, it won't be as cool to read as it is in the story.
I think most LN readers ended up reading the stories first, just because they were published a long time before the book. Since I'm new, I actually had the choice. What did I do? I only read some of the short stories. So that way it's only 20-40 percent recycled content, and yet I know the kind of thing I'm missing. So if I'm interesting in something, I can go look for the short story to get the full version.
So, I suppose in the end it depends on how dedicated you are. What would you do? What if you didn't have the choice of a mix? (If I didn't, I'd probably read all the short stories first, but that's just because I'm a fan of the author.)
This post was freakishly hard to write for some reason. I guess I'm not in a writing mood today. Oh well, I've finally got it out of my head! Thanks, as always, for reading. Bye!
Today I'm actually going to post about recycled content.
When you read a label that says "80 percent recycled content", you think, "Yay! It's environmental!" But what if you read that in a book review?
That was the title of a review on Amazon.com. I'm reading the book ("Juggler of Worlds" by Larry Niven and Edward Lerner) in question, so I've decided to write about that today.
What, exactly, is a book with "recycled content"? In my case, it's a book with certain plot points that have been used before, in short stories (and occasionally other books) by the same author. As in, the actual plots of the short stories. In LN's defense, he did write those parts from different perspectives than the first time, which seemed to change it enough, plus the way he fit all those different plots into a whole was interesting. But still, it's recycled.
When I heard it the first time, two thoughts came to mind: "That's kinda lazy", and "So am I supposed to read all those stories first?" That's my question today: would a new reader want to read the original stories first, and then the book? Or just the book itself?
On one hand, if you just read the book you get the end result either way, and with less effort because most of the plot points are shortened. But that way you probably won't want to read the stories afterward, because the endings have already been spoiled. And not just that: since the plot is condensed, it's not as full and interesting in the book as it would have been in the story.
On the other hand, if you read the stories first, then the book won't be so interesting. And, again, since all the side-plot things will be shortened, it won't be as cool to read as it is in the story.
I think most LN readers ended up reading the stories first, just because they were published a long time before the book. Since I'm new, I actually had the choice. What did I do? I only read some of the short stories. So that way it's only 20-40 percent recycled content, and yet I know the kind of thing I'm missing. So if I'm interesting in something, I can go look for the short story to get the full version.
So, I suppose in the end it depends on how dedicated you are. What would you do? What if you didn't have the choice of a mix? (If I didn't, I'd probably read all the short stories first, but that's just because I'm a fan of the author.)
This post was freakishly hard to write for some reason. I guess I'm not in a writing mood today. Oh well, I've finally got it out of my head! Thanks, as always, for reading. Bye!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday: Audio books
Thursday already? We're halfway there, guys! Keep blogging!
When I'm reading a book that isn't going well for me, but that I have to read (for the book club, for example), you'll often hear me saying, "I'm not getting through it, so I've ordered the audio book from the library."
Sometimes I wonder why I find listening to audio books more engaging than printed books. Is it because if I find a description boring, I can just not pay much attention to it and it'll go by? Is it because I can multitask while I'm listening?
Well, yes, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm very people-oriented, and when I listen to someone I pay attention. Certain things seem more interesting when I hear someone talking about it.
Technically you could say that just reading a book is sort of like listening to someone talking (the narrator, the characters). It is, and that's why I love to read (especially dialogue). At the same time, it's not as close to the real thing as an audio book. And I think that's the reason I like audio books so much.
I know this isn't the same for everyone. My mom, for example, prefers reading to listening.
What do you think? Do you like audio books, but for a different reason? Do you hate them? Discuss!
When I'm reading a book that isn't going well for me, but that I have to read (for the book club, for example), you'll often hear me saying, "I'm not getting through it, so I've ordered the audio book from the library."
Sometimes I wonder why I find listening to audio books more engaging than printed books. Is it because if I find a description boring, I can just not pay much attention to it and it'll go by? Is it because I can multitask while I'm listening?
Well, yes, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm very people-oriented, and when I listen to someone I pay attention. Certain things seem more interesting when I hear someone talking about it.
Technically you could say that just reading a book is sort of like listening to someone talking (the narrator, the characters). It is, and that's why I love to read (especially dialogue). At the same time, it's not as close to the real thing as an audio book. And I think that's the reason I like audio books so much.
I know this isn't the same for everyone. My mom, for example, prefers reading to listening.
What do you think? Do you like audio books, but for a different reason? Do you hate them? Discuss!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday: Ages
I'm at day three in the week-long-blogging-challenge, and while I'm not sure what to write about (especially in the coming days), I'm sure I'll figure something out.
A couple of years ago, when I was still really into the Myst Series games, I used to make "Ages" (other worlds) using two very different programs: Photoshop and Terragen.
With Photoshop, I'd combine elements from different photos to create surreal-looking images. Here are some of my favorite ones:
There's also Terragen, which...um, generates terrain. The Ages I made with Terragen look more alike, but they have a more uniform realistic look, since the lighting is all the same. Although I started out making more Photoshop Ages, once I got the hang of Terragen I liked it better. Here are some Terragen Ages:
As you can see, I like to work with lots of water, but you can also make terrain without water.
Well, thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for commenting!
A couple of years ago, when I was still really into the Myst Series games, I used to make "Ages" (other worlds) using two very different programs: Photoshop and Terragen.
With Photoshop, I'd combine elements from different photos to create surreal-looking images. Here are some of my favorite ones:
There's also Terragen, which...um, generates terrain. The Ages I made with Terragen look more alike, but they have a more uniform realistic look, since the lighting is all the same. Although I started out making more Photoshop Ages, once I got the hang of Terragen I liked it better. Here are some Terragen Ages:
As you can see, I like to work with lots of water, but you can also make terrain without water.
Well, thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for commenting!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Tuesday: Star Trek
Herein lies day two of the "WLBC", as Dorothy called it. (BTW...yay, three people are participating in it!)
Well, my nerdiness is complete: I watch Star Trek on TV. It started when I went to see the new Star Trek movie (which was really good, by the way). Soon after, I found out that the actual TV series (two series', actually: the original and the Next Generation) was showing in the late mornings. So, I was curious and started watching it.
The "first generation"...that is, the original, is very...sixties. The music is really cheesy ("dun dun...DUNNNNNNN!"), the acting isn't great, and the planets they go to look a LOT like movie sets (maybe because they are? Dun dun DUNNN!). But the funny thing is, it kind of grows on you. I wasn't around in the sixties, and I haven't watched it until now, so there isn't any nostalgia for me. But it's kind of sweet. And some of the episodes have really interesting stories.
I was more into "The Next Generation" when I first started watching. Despite the fact that I was unfamiliar with the characters, I began to like them quickly. It was also somewhat more...believable, I guess. Graphics, music...it absorbed easier. Now I like them equally, because their so different from each other despite having the same setting.
I haven't seen any of the other Star Trek series' (I heard Deep Space Nine is darker in storyline, so that might be interesting), but maybe I'll look for them on YouTube.
Anyway, I'm one of those people that like SF for the story and the characters, rather than the ideas and the science. In some ways, Star Trek reminds me of Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe. Both things seem to put more emphasis on the "science" than the "fiction"...although, I still somehow really like both. I guess I can find enough character to be interested, even if the creator didn't put it there. (I'm talking more about Known Space here than Star Trek...I think Star Trek has some really cool characters, especially TNG. Although so does Known Space.)
And that's it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Dun dun DUNNNNNN!
Well, my nerdiness is complete: I watch Star Trek on TV. It started when I went to see the new Star Trek movie (which was really good, by the way). Soon after, I found out that the actual TV series (two series', actually: the original and the Next Generation) was showing in the late mornings. So, I was curious and started watching it.
The "first generation"...that is, the original, is very...sixties. The music is really cheesy ("dun dun...DUNNNNNNN!"), the acting isn't great, and the planets they go to look a LOT like movie sets (maybe because they are? Dun dun DUNNN!). But the funny thing is, it kind of grows on you. I wasn't around in the sixties, and I haven't watched it until now, so there isn't any nostalgia for me. But it's kind of sweet. And some of the episodes have really interesting stories.
I was more into "The Next Generation" when I first started watching. Despite the fact that I was unfamiliar with the characters, I began to like them quickly. It was also somewhat more...believable, I guess. Graphics, music...it absorbed easier. Now I like them equally, because their so different from each other despite having the same setting.
I haven't seen any of the other Star Trek series' (I heard Deep Space Nine is darker in storyline, so that might be interesting), but maybe I'll look for them on YouTube.
Anyway, I'm one of those people that like SF for the story and the characters, rather than the ideas and the science. In some ways, Star Trek reminds me of Larry Niven's "Known Space" universe. Both things seem to put more emphasis on the "science" than the "fiction"...although, I still somehow really like both. I guess I can find enough character to be interested, even if the creator didn't put it there. (I'm talking more about Known Space here than Star Trek...I think Star Trek has some really cool characters, especially TNG. Although so does Known Space.)
And that's it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Dun dun DUNNNNNN!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday: blogging and hair
I was just looking over the comments in my previous post. Thanks for giving me your thoughts, guys...I'm always interested to read them. I actually got inspired to write in my blog more, inspired enough to try something I've been wanting to do for a while: a post-every-day-for-a-week challenge! What am I going to talk about during that time? I have no idea, but hopefully I'll come up with something. I've been wanting to try this for a while, just to see how long I could pull it off. I'll try for a week, and maybe I'll extend it if I feel like it. So...might as well start now! (If anyone wants to take part, feel free.)
So...here's one thing that's on my mind right now. Does anyone watch video blogs (or "vlogs") on YouTube? I do, sometimes. It's interesting that in some ways it's really similar to blogging, but it's also quite different. It seems like if you want a successful vlog, you have to know what you're saying in each entry. Rambling is just kind of boring to watch. In blogging, there's more wiggle-room in terms of how much you want to talk. Or maybe what sounds like rambling in a video sounds more structured in a blog post. *shrug*
Also, I'm getting a haircut today (don't worry, this isn't going to be a rant about the style). It's going to be "medium" in terms of length, and I haven't had hair like that since I was six. Actually, when I was six and decided to grow it I claimed I would never have short hair again. Heh, things change. Well, this is supposed to be the age when you try things! I might go even shorter if I like it a lot. Ok, you probably didn't want to read about that. Oh well!
Well, that's about it. Tune in tomorrow, when I talk about...other random things!
So...here's one thing that's on my mind right now. Does anyone watch video blogs (or "vlogs") on YouTube? I do, sometimes. It's interesting that in some ways it's really similar to blogging, but it's also quite different. It seems like if you want a successful vlog, you have to know what you're saying in each entry. Rambling is just kind of boring to watch. In blogging, there's more wiggle-room in terms of how much you want to talk. Or maybe what sounds like rambling in a video sounds more structured in a blog post. *shrug*
Also, I'm getting a haircut today (don't worry, this isn't going to be a rant about the style). It's going to be "medium" in terms of length, and I haven't had hair like that since I was six. Actually, when I was six and decided to grow it I claimed I would never have short hair again. Heh, things change. Well, this is supposed to be the age when you try things! I might go even shorter if I like it a lot. Ok, you probably didn't want to read about that. Oh well!
Well, that's about it. Tune in tomorrow, when I talk about...other random things!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A lot of questions about "classics"
Book critic mode...engage!
This month my book club was reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin", by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I thought it was kinda boring until the halfway point, then it got really good. Wasn't a big fan of the dialogue, though...but you learn to ignore that. But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
I have a friend who couldn't get through it, and we had an interesting discussion over the phone about classics and books in general. At the book club meeting, the conversation turned in that direction as well. It seems like all of the members, whether they like classic books or not, agree that reading a book just so you can say, "I read this! I'm so scholarly!" is not why you should read it. I think the best way to put it is: classics for the sake of classics is entirely missing the point. I think lots of people, even if they try to avoid it, usually read a classic book with that kind of thing in mind (I know I do!). I'm not saying that it's the only reason someone reads a classic, but it's often there under the surface.
So...that leads to the question: how do you define a classic, then? It seems to be a really subjective thing. Is any book a classic if it's old? Do you have to learn something from a classic? If so, then there are a lot of modern books that have powerful messages. And, as my friend was saying, sometimes modern books are more relevant to real life because they are written by people in our time, who are faced with more or less the same problems.
But...does a book have to be relevant at all? What about fantasy? I guess you can say that fantasy has a lot of symbols for real life, but what if a book wasn't written that way? What if it you don't learn anything from a book that can be applied to your life, but it was powerful in a different way?
I'm kind of going off in various directions here, but what I'm trying to say is: does a book always have to "teach you something"? Is it only a classic then? Or is it just an old book? Or is a classic just a book that you love, for whatever reason? (That makes it a more personal definition, of course.)
So...what do you think? Do you know what I'm talking about? Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear people's opinions.
This month my book club was reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin", by Harriet Beecher Stowe. I thought it was kinda boring until the halfway point, then it got really good. Wasn't a big fan of the dialogue, though...but you learn to ignore that. But that's not what I wanted to talk about.
I have a friend who couldn't get through it, and we had an interesting discussion over the phone about classics and books in general. At the book club meeting, the conversation turned in that direction as well. It seems like all of the members, whether they like classic books or not, agree that reading a book just so you can say, "I read this! I'm so scholarly!" is not why you should read it. I think the best way to put it is: classics for the sake of classics is entirely missing the point. I think lots of people, even if they try to avoid it, usually read a classic book with that kind of thing in mind (I know I do!). I'm not saying that it's the only reason someone reads a classic, but it's often there under the surface.
So...that leads to the question: how do you define a classic, then? It seems to be a really subjective thing. Is any book a classic if it's old? Do you have to learn something from a classic? If so, then there are a lot of modern books that have powerful messages. And, as my friend was saying, sometimes modern books are more relevant to real life because they are written by people in our time, who are faced with more or less the same problems.
But...does a book have to be relevant at all? What about fantasy? I guess you can say that fantasy has a lot of symbols for real life, but what if a book wasn't written that way? What if it you don't learn anything from a book that can be applied to your life, but it was powerful in a different way?
I'm kind of going off in various directions here, but what I'm trying to say is: does a book always have to "teach you something"? Is it only a classic then? Or is it just an old book? Or is a classic just a book that you love, for whatever reason? (That makes it a more personal definition, of course.)
So...what do you think? Do you know what I'm talking about? Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear people's opinions.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Done!
Here's the 19-thread bracelet I was talking about earlier. I think it came out really well. I wore it when I went to my grandma's house and she said it was really pretty, so...yay! What do you think of it? Comment! *smiles eagerly*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
