Log in

No account? Create an account
07 September 2011 @ 07:50 pm
I Like Information  

I would like to know how we can get anything said at all if, before we even open the virtual equivalent of our mouths, we are judged by whatever forum or platform we use to host our statements on. Lately I've seen LJ users flinging mock-insults at Tumblr users, the internet at large tut-tutting LJ users, and so on, all based upon the assumption that the platform you use says something about you in advance, presumed to make your opinion less valid. While every platform is going to be split into content and chaff, assuming that everything's going to be chaff because it's on that platform is, or should be, an obvious fallacy. So why the prevalence of dismissing people because they state something on Platform This or Platform That?

Never mind, though, about these "internal" squabbles. The real conflict - as we're supposed to perceive the "real" conflict - lies between the internet and the traditional (printed) media, with the traditional sneering at the electronic. The usual reasoning for such distaste is that "anyone can post on the internet", which these arguments construe as a reason why nothing (that isn't backed by some "real" outside authority) on the internet can be trusted. In a way, there's a point buried under the bias: anyone can post on the internet.

And so what?

In these arguments, "anyone" is invariably equated with "any amateur". However, the reverse is also true: the internet is an opportunity for any brilliant thinker, activist, writer, visual artist, et cetera to find an outlet for their work. In many cases, it's the only outlet that person has available for any number of reasons, and diminishing it just because its realization takes place on a screen and not on the page should indeed be called out as the arbitrary standard it is. By not being superficially regulated, the internet accumulates content, and there is no reason to think all of this content is vapid or irrelevant simply because it hasn't gone through some sort of approval board before it was released.

This brings us to the question that should always be asked: whose is the advantage? Internet publishing, on the most fundamental level, is disadvantaged by its dual nature: on the one hand, posting something on the internet is usually not considered "legitimate" publishing (regardless of quality) and rarely makes the author's fame; on the other hand, traditional publishers will often require whatever is submitted for their consideration not to have been published before, including on the internet. The only constant here seems to be disdain for the internet by virtue of what it is, but how publishing on it should be seen or treated fluctuates according to whatever is deemed profitable to the traditional publishing houses. My guess is that they do recognize the power of digitally disseminated information (mostly for free, let's not understate that), which provides them with the incentive to delegitimize it because it is free and unsupervised. The image of the double-edged sword could hardly be more fitting.

Profit and control make a compelling rationale. The issue of quality control is often raised in defence of the traditional media - but upon closer inspection, "quality control" often devolves simply into "whatever it is in the publisher's interest to put out". In my experience, I have read absolutely trivial, badly researched, or outright offensive published works (fiction and nonfiction) - but an equal amount of thoughtful, well-written pieces online (fiction and nonfiction). Obviously, it depends on knowing where to look to find the good material, but the point is that this applies to both the internet and print publishing. Nothing is automatically "better" by virtue of being respectably published, and the amount of times this attitude is seen, not to mention presented as something that shouldn't be questioned in the first place, is frankly disturbing.

I have used the word "respectable" on purpose. Traditional publishing is undeniably about sanctioning, about marking a work "fit" for being published in a way that will generate money. It is telling that in this process of legitimizing certain works and not others, the internet is excluded as it is 1) widely accessible without needing to patronize a publisher, and 2) not immediately subject to institutional control. These are interests that have nothing to do with some purported idea of quality (not to mention that, even with quality control as such, cooperating with an editor is not necessarily dependent on submitting anything to an established publishing house). There is a whole host of classist and elitist attitudes inherent in the idea that, say, a piece of writing can only be validated by approval by an institution that expects it to bring back monetary revenue. The point of control discussed above also remains relevant.

When I write academic articles, I believe it would be beneficial for everyone concerned if I could draw upon my selection of tried-and-true online resources for a given topic - but because those particular pages do not happen to be sanctioned in a specific way, their usage is openly discouraged. How's this for perpetuating the establishment as a guarantee, for weeding out ideas that have (for whatever reason, related or unrelated to writing quality) not been put before a committee? I went into academia with the idealistic conviction that it should challenge, not act as just another drone of normativity and prescriptivism that will let you make your point, but only if you back it by using a selection of certain preemptively approved texts and not others. This also highlights the alleged division between theory and practice, when in fact they are inseparable. (Academia, why do you do this to yourself? You need all the contemporary relevance you can get before they turn your institutions into job-training centres in the name of - you guessed it! - profitability.)

Let's wrap this up with the observation that, in any field with loose or partial objective standards, the presence of an evaluation committee guarantees nothing apart from a set of its own biases. That, and an arbitrary approval stamp on top. Is this the sort of cultural discussion we want? More importantly, is it any sort of discussion that can usher in perspectives that are still largely silenced?

Authority: it's not synonymous with quality. It is, however, correlated with ideology and legitimization almost universally, and I wish people would think of that before they instinctively decry the internet for being so thoroughly "unauthorized".

(PS: Hello, LJ. Long time, no see! Oh and yeah, I was thinking of giving Dragon Age a try since I've had it recommended left and right but apparently not. Why does everything have to fail at something, and why can't it at least fail at something that could be ignored?)

missmonkeh on September 7th, 2011 07:15 pm (UTC)
Nothing is automatically "better" by virtue of being respectably published, and the amount of times this attitude is seen, not to mention presented as something that shouldn't be questioned in the first place, is frankly disturbing.

This. The number of blogs I've read that have been far better quality than their print equivalents (newspapers, I suppose, and magazines) both in terms of actual writing and research...well, and that's without even touching on "derivative" fiction and fanworks, which we both have strong ideas about.

It's snobbery, of course, and the idea that because you don't have to be editor-approved to publish on the internet means your writing is automatically of a lower quality.

See you later, instigator: Ocelot - Lotsoudeteron on September 7th, 2011 08:20 pm (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, and I'm glad we're in the same boat. All this seems to me like something that shouldn't even need to be said - and yet, and yet.

I MISS YOU TOO, AND OTHERS WHO-KNOW-WHO-THEY-ARE FROM PCHAT. Been very busy/stressed almost all the time but I'll definitely be around more when I can!
Half Woman, Half Biscuit: ocelotevamissmonkeh on September 7th, 2011 11:20 pm (UTC)
SENDING STRESS-RELIEVING GOODNESS YOUR WAY. Hope to see more of you when it's all over, and best of luck for the rest of the exams!

(it always bears repeating, and while there remain those who denigrate blogging and fanfiction and related forms of writing as 'lesser', it always will. We can only hope it might sink in someday)
See you later, instigator: Adam Rippon - gestureoudeteron on September 8th, 2011 12:00 pm (UTC)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED. I'll do what I can to get it to a point where I don't have to restrict my time for this or that, but right now it's still hanging over me. XD

(Yeah, you're absolutely right.)
kohl_eyed on September 7th, 2011 08:34 pm (UTC)
I regret that my brain is not in working order today and I can't offer up the discussion and proper praise this deserves, but I do want to say how much I admire your eloquence!
See you later, instigator: Ocelot - Winky Heartoudeteron on September 7th, 2011 09:01 pm (UTC)
Thank you. I've been feeling non-eloquent lately (and yet I'm writing these things, what!) so this is incredibly reassuring. :D
tiamariaanactoria on September 8th, 2011 09:18 am (UTC)
Dammit, where's that clapping .gif?

I have ~*many thoughts*~ about this, mostly in the same vein as yours, but of course I had to click on this 5 mins before leaving for the opticians. Maybe I'll drop by to agree some more later. ;)
See you later, instigator: Luna Seaoudeteron on September 8th, 2011 11:50 am (UTC)
I know which one you mean! XD

Hope your appointment goes well, and don't worry about it unless there's anything in particular you'd like to say here. I'm very glad you agree.
tiamariaanactoria on September 8th, 2011 06:22 pm (UTC)
Hello again. ;) Well, what this really put me in mind of was a conference I attended earlier in the year. The last presenter on the first day was a really young guy (an MA student), and after he'd given his paper I heard quite a few people being very disparaging because he'd referred to TVTropes in his presentation. I'm not talking about silver-haired old professors, mind -- they were fellow PhD students, in the 20-30 age bracket.

And yeah, the paper definitely wasn't perfect, and you certainly need a greater variety of references than the presenter gave. But the fact that people were so ready to dismiss the paper completely because the guy had referred to something online that wasn't an academic journal (you know, the kind that you can only access with a subscription costing several hundreds of pounds annually, so you've got no chance if you're not part of an institution...) was kind of depressing. Not that I'm suggesting that anyone should build an essay or a paper solely from info off TVTropes or Wiki or anything, but the fact that there are all these thoughtful, well-researched conversations about literature and TV and film out there that are going completely ignored... gives me a bad feeling, I guess.

Also, it was kind of hugely obvious that there were maybe 4 or 5 people there who were fannish, and there were just these occasional bits of the conversation that seemed to fly over the heads of everyone else there. Which, y'know, felt kind of cool because it was like being in a secret club. ;) But on a more serious level, I do hope that it becomes more acceptable to refer to these kinds of conversations and have them taken seriously. But at the same time, there are a lot of vested interests (particularly academic publishers) who may well want to prevent that happening. IDK if I'm hopeful or not, I guess.

Anyway, yeah, the point of the above is mostly... I agree. Sorry about the long-windedness *g*.
See you later, instigator: MGSpartaoudeteron on September 8th, 2011 11:27 pm (UTC)
Hey! :D Thanks for sharing this experience since it's certainly enlightening on people's attitudes, to say the least. Also, wow.

But the fact that people were so ready to dismiss the paper completely because the guy had referred to something online that wasn't an academic journal (you know, the kind that you can only access with a subscription costing several hundreds of pounds annually, so you've got no chance if you're not part of an institution...) was kind of depressing.

Can I just say "this" over and over? Because, yeah, the fact alone that the journals considered "respectable" are again restricted and dependent on either money or institutional support illustrates the point perfectly. It's so obviously about what's seen as legitimate and what isn't by some arbitrary consensus that it's not even funny. And then they go and make it less available.

Those fannish people must've made it worth it, though. I love inside jokes and finding people who get them. XD

No need to apologize for long-windedness; this was interesting to read! And, yeah, I agree with you too.
燕雀安んぞ鴻鵠の志をしらんやcowgirlmaxwell on September 8th, 2011 12:59 pm (UTC)
the internet at large tut-tutting LJ users
Matey, I've seen this happen even before I joined LJ. I think it's just the nature of the internet to try and establish one community's superiority over the other (think 4chan's contempt for Reddit).

The "RL Info > Internet Info" belief is another one of those small little niggly things that makes my blood boil in about 0.1 nanoseconds. I swear to god, the next time a librarian tells me that "Wikipedia is bad because anyone can edit it"*...


These sorts of situations are the ones I categorize as the "sit them out" situations. By that, I mean that realistically speaking it's nigh impossible to change the views held by the majority of the generations before us on this matter, so all we can do is wait for the generations after us and then make sure we 'educate' them properly. We can rationalise and argue with Luddites until we pass out from dehydration/lack of sleep/what have you, but it's unrealistic that these people will change their views (well, enough that it would actually make a difference). Unfortunately, there's nothing much we can do but to continue to publish quality texts and distribute them digitally/over the internet and keep digital text formats from being obsolete, and in its own time (ie when literary critics are not solely 50+ year old men who can't operate anything other than Microsoft Word) it will be seen as a viable medium on par with traditional print.

And don't get me started on some of the dismal physically printed book. One day I should fish up this book that one of my crazy fundamentalist Christian relatives gave my mother the Christmas after I read (and quickly got over) the Harry Potter books. It's something about how Harry Potter or something contradicts Christianity with one single argument that is repeated in the most impressive display of bullshit artistry and tautology that I've read, and is pretty much just a hate letter to JK Rowling that doesn't really say anything and doesn't really go anywhere. Reading it out of curiosity (I was like 8/9), I really began to question the authenticity of published books...

Disclaimer: I actually prefer books to reading stuff on screens, I guess I like to give my eyes a bit of a break every now and then. I still like the idea of digital storage of books, though.

*I know that (generally speaking) Wikipedia is dubious as an academic source, but in terms of a general-use reference source is literally one of the most ignorant things I've heard.
燕雀安んぞ鴻鵠の志をしらんやcowgirlmaxwell on September 8th, 2011 01:26 pm (UTC)
Second comment, because the first one was getting too long:

Re: Dragon Age- I haven't played it (on my to-play list), but I really think using one person's opinion as a deal-breaker is unwise; if you feel strongly about the incorrect handling of issues in a game, I think experiencing it yourself is better than being an angry outsider. Actually playing through those problematic parts is far more ideal than actually simply reading about them in an article by someone who seems to have a huge bias against these issues (keeping in mind I'm in my objective-analytical mindset here), because it will give context that you won't be able to get by simply watching/reading about standalone scenes. Maybe it's supposed to be some sort of sick parody of the views held by rape apologists/transphobic people/etc? I don't know where I'm going with this because again, I haven't actually played it, but it seems a little bit unwise to disregard the whole thing on the basis of one persons' opinion.

I hate it when people do this, and this is slightly offtopic to what the actual issue was, but I really encourage you to read this piece written by Yahtzee on DA2 about the homosexual romance options. I just thought it was a really interesting and well-articulated piece (unfortunately, he still has to keep up his "inappropriate joke" facade whenever he's writing on The Escapist).
See you later, instigator: The Motorcycle Diaries - Walkingoudeteron on September 8th, 2011 08:02 pm (UTC)
Well, I have to take an issue with this. For one, the article writer isn't just "stating an opinion". It is not biased to point out that something is (as in this case) transphobic; it's just speaking against a kind of bigotry that has become so prevalent in mainstream culture that solely criticizing it/calling it out for what it is gets one labelled as biased, the way you've just done here. I am all for debate when there's something to debate - but there is no "other side" to respecting people's gender and not playing it up for cheap laughs that isn't entrenched in transphobic tropes. Either you do respect how others identify, or you don't. Putting their gender in scare quotes and making them the butt of a joke that has zero relevance to the actual plot isn't respectful by any stretch. That's not to mention that movies/games/books/etc. get a free pass on casual bigotry like this all the time by default, so giving it the benefit of the doubt isn't just being nice and seeing where it gets you, but actively contributing to a climate where picking on one massively disadvantaged group is the norm.

I'm not discounting the merits that series might have (and probably does) as a whole, just saying that the presence of this rather telling scene makes me gag to the point that I'm not going to give the developer my money. It is a little off-putting to have a complex series like this and find out that all of this complexity has the limitation of "for cis people only" written into the source canon.

I would buy this scene as parody if it were tied to something else in the game that subverted it, which by the looks of it being a standalone scene it is not. I would buy it as a portrayal of transphobia in the world if the game did anything else apart from perpetuating it further. I'm frankly shocked it's taken this long for these problems to be given the spotlight somewhere (though I shouldn't be, considering the average consumer of any media doesn't give two fucks about queer issues).

My point is this: nothing is going to change if we cling to looking for ways to excuse every piece of blatantly offensive/bigoted work. It is not rare or hard to believe that a game, or indeed any other medium, would incorporate a moment of token transphobia. I'll read the piece you linked but it's going to do nothing to mitigate the sheer amount of fail Bioware has shown regarding this issue.
燕雀安んぞ鴻鵠の志をしらんやcowgirlmaxwell on September 9th, 2011 08:18 am (UTC)
it's just speaking against a kind of bigotry that has become so prevalent in mainstream culture that solely criticizing it/calling it out for what it is gets one labelled as biased, the way you've just done here.
I don't really have much to say about this post, but I just want to pick up on what you said here- I am lead to believe you are implying that bias is a negative thing. I wasn't saying that because the article shows great evidence of bias that it is not saying anything worthwhile/true, I was just noting the fact that it is not just a factual piece. There's nothing wrong with bias! Yes, there is lots of factual evidence in the article, but it's not all factual information; it is important to acknowledge that there is a large amount of opinionated and emotive language used. I was simply trying to encourage you do give the game a shot regardless- and after you encounter said morally incorrect scenes/anything else you have issue with that wasn't mentioned in the article, you could contact Bioware about it, or write your own articles and publish them somewhere, or something. Grumping about behaviour that you don't approve of and simply wishing about the way it should be and doing nothing practical about it isn't really the way to go about social reform.

With all due respect, I don't really care either way if you play the game or not, I just wanted to express that this is probably the course of action I would take if I felt strongly about something socially unjust in media (so please don't take it as if I'm actually defending this sort of content, I'm just speaking generally). And hey, the game's been out long enough that you can probably find the game second-hand, thus acquiring a legal copy whilst not giving Bioware any of your money!

(I also find it hard to believe that this would be the first article/piece written about such a thing, so I wouldn't worry about that too much, either.)
See you later, instigator: Metal Gear Awesome - Fine Jeezoudeteron on September 9th, 2011 01:47 pm (UTC)
You keep making the same suggestions: give them the benefit of the doubt, tolerate the bigotry until you're sure it really really is bigotry, don't "trust" articles that are "biased" against another more pernicious bias (it doesn't matter if you construe one bias as positive and another as negative; you're still implying that pointing out the wrong in gratuitous transphobia means that one is biased).

If someone gave me a copy of this game for free, yeah, I would play it and probably enjoy a great deal of the stuff that isn't entrenched in bigoted fail. But I am in no way obliged to invest that much, or to write letters to some faceless PR bureau that aren't even likely to be read by whoever wrote this scene, just to express an opinion on something that's been covered outside the game itself. I linked to the article in the first place because I think it does a good job of analyzing what the problem is and I wanted to spread the word; not to "grump" about behaviour I don't "approve of" (seriously?). This particular problem does not need to be reworded by several different writers until [general] you find its handling thorough and "fair" and acceptable, or even acknowledge that it's a problem.

I get that you're purporting not to take sides. Unfortunately, while that cautious approach may suit some people, it doesn't work for everyone and I am quite fed up with this trend that for every article that calls out something bigoted/ignorant/offensive and so on, someone has to pop out to say "but wait, maybe it's not as bad as it looks to you, stop overreacting and research it more and maybe then your opinion will count". That's privilege talking, derailing, and tone-policing, with the only result of detracting from the real issue yet again.
燕雀安んぞ鴻鵠の志をしらんやcowgirlmaxwell on September 9th, 2011 08:19 am (UTC)
Oh, and again: you've probably read it by now, but the article isn't all that related- it's just a big "fuck you" to the homophobic kids that think having homosexual romance options affects their masculinity. It's just a fun/interesting read.
See you later, instigator: Toshioudeteron on September 9th, 2011 04:14 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant by saying they were different issues.
See you later, instigator: Zhuge Liang - gazeoudeteron on September 8th, 2011 07:36 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure I heard some equivalent of this that didn't involve LJ before I used it, but this is what I mostly come across nowadays. It sucks for LJ all around: on the one hand there's this ongoing bias against it, on the other hand the people who DDoS-ed it know very well that it is a powerful medium and act on this knowledge negatively. This, to me, is a double standard that can and does bite the whole of the internet from time to time.

It's pretty sad that Wiki will probably never be redeemed in those people's eyes - even though it's instituted things like page ratings (I'm guessing partly to deal with this problem) and some of the articles there are genuinely in-depth (not all of them, obviously, but that's the case with anything that spans hundreds of thousands of articles). Sure, anyone can edit it - how about when it's an expert in the given field who's just not that interested in writing for subscription-based ~academic~ journals, for example? And so on, and so forth.

I think it's quite an optimistic view to say that the prevailing attitude will change in time, but you're right that there are good reasons why it might/logically should. The more I think about it, the more this aversion towards the internet looks like an example of "good" old privilege of certain-media-and-those-producing-them perpetuating itself. Not gonna lie, I like the idea that their days are essentially numbered based solely on the fact that outdated technologies get abandoned; I just hope it does turn out to be the case.

pretty much just a hate letter to JK Rowling that doesn't really say anything and doesn't really go anywhere.
Jeez, I remember when mass burning of the HP books was making the news but had no idea they were also writing their own hate-pamphlets to "fight" the "evil" of JKR to boot. Well, it's a nice piece of irony reading that just incited you to question the medium they chose all the more for it. The beauty of unintended effects!
燕雀安んぞ鴻鵠の志をしらんや: omg omgomgomgmomg omgomgcowgirlmaxwell on September 9th, 2011 07:46 am (UTC)
on the other hand the people who DDoS-ed it know very well that it is a powerful medium and act on this knowledge negatively.
The extent of my knowledge on this issue (and forgive me if I'm wrong) was strictly a more political thing to do with the popularity of LJ in Russia. In this case, LJ is seen as a powerful social medium, not a literary/academic one. The thing about the internet being a powerful social medium is that the quality of opinions/what have you don't need to be of a very good standard at all; they just need to be said. I disagree on that point about it being a double-standard: I think the internet as a social medium and the internet as a literary/academic medium are two completely different ballparks.

To me, personally, the only problem about Wikipedia as an academic source is the lack of responsibility of the information there- I think everything about it is fine, except for the fact that you can't pin down the information to the authors- to me, that's the only dubious part about it. Now that I've said that, it only really applies to more subjective articles- science/maths articles like this one are either accurate or inaccurate, and as long as it's the former there doesn't really need to be anyone responsible for the information because it can be passed under the cloud of 'General Knowledge' (well, maybe not that particular article...) On the other hand, with articles on things such as History/Historical events, it's probably a lot better for the origin of the information to be known, so the reader can understand the social contexts etc etc etc behind the article (I'm under the impression you've studied like subjects and know what I'm talking about). Other than that, Wikipedia is one of the most fantastic sources of information conceived by humans ever and anyone who thinks otherwise is nothing but sorely deluded.

And for some reason this talk about HP has now reminded me of this comic.
See you later, instigator: Gellert - all wrongoudeteron on September 9th, 2011 01:27 pm (UTC)
Oh they definitely aren't the same thing, but the DDoSers did realize that what gets posted on LJ has the power to shape popular opinion and provide different perspectives, which in itself isn't confined to just social media. It was an issue of political activism but it ties to the fact that the printed media in Russia don't in general provide unbiased information anymore, hence whatever was posted to LJ was/is a counterpoint to that - I would say that makes it "better" information than the printed sort in that it's not subject to the same censorship. It's not the same issue, fair enough, but there are parallels.

Obviously, taking anything from the internet calls for discernment and no one's likely to argue with that; it's just a problem when you're stopped before you get to the point where you'd be using discernment because of this attitude of "internet = bad". (And, yeah, I would imagine maths has less of a space for reinterpretation than history, but again limiting the sources of history-related articles would present the problem of exclusion; also the "hard facts" tend to be sourced even on Wiki as far as I've noticed.)

Nice find. XD
Imaginesimagines on September 11th, 2011 12:49 am (UTC)
I am nuzzling this post so hard you don't even know

There is a whole host of classist and elitist attitudes inherent in the idea that, say, a piece of writing can only be validated by approval by an institution that expects it to bring back monetary revenue.

THESE ARE GOOD WORDS AND YOU SHOULD FEEL GOOD. HOLY SHIT. You have given me some things to think about. You have also strengthened my resolve to continue posting what I write online. Yes, I would like to make money off my writing, but NOT at the expense of a) my freedom to say what I want how I want and b) the free dissemination of words to anyone who cares to read them. (Ideally, I would offer my writing as "pay what you want" or on some kind of sliding scale—for instance, a PDF download that's free + a paper copy sold for a minor profit.)

God, bb, I just want to quote you all over the internet. I will settle for telling my flist to come read this post, k? I LOVE YOU AND YOUR BRAIN SO MUCH.

Also? You inspire me. I can't even tell you how much. You make me feel like what I want to do IS worth it—and what I want to do is write about the things that impact my generation right here, right now, today, and if that means I quote LJ posts and FFnet and TV Tropes, then SO BE IT. (Oh my god, you do realize that this could mean citing Wikipedia in a TOTALLY LEGITIMATE FASHION someday?? You have unleashed a monster. ;D)

...p.s. can I link this to Tumblr? ;p No but seriously, I know some people who would get a kick out of this post. (are you for srs? LJ people fight Tumblr people? But...but I know so many people who use both... o_____O;;; )
See you later, instigator: Velvet Goldmine - Smokeoudeteron on September 13th, 2011 08:19 pm (UTC)
askhl; EXCUSE THE KEYBOARDSMASH but thank you for this comment; you have no idea how much you've cheered me up here. Thank you. With pieces like this, the best I can hope for is to make someone think, so all you've said here makes me inordinately happy.

Yes, I would like to make money off my writing, but NOT at the expense of a) my freedom to say what I want how I want and b) the free dissemination of words to anyone who cares to read them. (Ideally, I would offer my writing as "pay what you want" or on some kind of sliding scale—for instance, a PDF download that's free + a paper copy sold for a minor profit.)
That's how I feel about this as well. Ultimately, I think that money would be nice, but making it the priority of writing is always going to come with concessions. And once you've made those concessions, are you still saying anything we haven't heard before? That to me is the main problem - mainstream publishing coinciding with the establishment while reaching a huge amount of people, a lot of whom don't look beyond the mainstream publishing. And those of us who primarily look elsewhere are disenfranchised in this arrangement.

I'm glad this post has resonated with you that much. And no need to ask, this is very consciously public so link wherever you want! ILU TOO.

...okay, now I'm grinning and starting to blush. But just so you know, the inspiration goes both ways! I think you're all kinds of awesome yourself. We have to stick together and do these things we feel passionate about and CHEER EACH OTHER ON. (This monster ain't going back to its cage! XD)

As I said, I'm very very happy you want to link this anywhere, all the more if there are people who might want to read it. So feel free! (I have the impression a lot of people use both, so the whole rivalry thing is short-sighted. I could name some kickass blogs I follow on Tumblr, though I don't keep the sort of presence I do on LJ over there since I can't invest the same amount of energy into blogging in two places, plus I like LJ's format with comments and whatnot better in terms of utility. But as with everything, you can find great content on Tumblr if you know where to look - quite a lot of it, I'd say.)

Sorry for the late reply. Thanks again. <3
Cherrycherrytruck on September 13th, 2011 08:30 pm (UTC)
I have nothing else to add on so have this gif
See you later, instigator: Cao Caooudeteron on September 13th, 2011 08:32 pm (UTC)
This is a worthy addition

pitrypitry on October 2nd, 2011 07:47 pm (UTC)
I completely agree about academia, which is one of the reasons I really love my chosen field. I'm studying language documentation, which involves almost always minority languages. Now, ethics point out that we the linguists gain a career out of the work, and that the speaker community should also gain something from it. So the norm sort of developed that the minimum of what people give back is a dictionary and grammar, and in better cases also educational materials. But, seeing as a lot of the traditional forms of these things is not necessarily the best for the language speakers or learners, and since the publishing of all of these takes forever and they're usually very expensive, it's very common these days that the results made for the community are published online. So there's so many online resources and it's not frowned upon. Which is brilliant.

I generally agree with what you've said, and am now trying to phrase it in FFR-worthy ways :D
See you later, instigator: Toshioudeteron on October 3rd, 2011 04:56 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the comment! I don't have much to add except that I'm glad this has resonated with you. :D