Reply to comment

I do promise to actually come back and post/reply to something REAL, but for now, the notes.

Tuesday: Tim Burke- Citizen Intellectual (as he was introduced) - WARNING:these notes are unchronological and somewhat incomplete (as are all things?). I refer you to Anne Dalke's notes

The last two examples of things we should read: people being malicious or contradictory? Malicious if they're just "trying to win the argument" rather than keep it going, or are chameleonically changing and using you as a means to their own ends-- even on the internet, we're all "performing selves" and as we get older/more experienced, we can see clues to what doesn't belong/ what isn't true to a person.

Communities that are formed around blogs show a loyalty and like-mindedness where The Other (the newcomer with a different view) ends up having a Punch and Judy show interaction in the comments instead of useful dialogue.

But at that rate, if the point is to establish a conversation- with people of different views coming together- rather than to manipulate others into following your own view, are these internet communities around blogs not the way to go about it?

The more personal blogs, written mostly by women, seem to get the kind of community Tim wants: one that shares their experiences.

But then there's the problem of authority: who has the authority to talk about different subjects? When blogging about Zimbabwe, he finds that people see him as an expert and want his opinion on what is going to happen and rarely has anyone contradict him.

Should academic or experiential win out as a justification for opinion (essay by Joan Scott: "Experience") ? Experience shouldn't be labeled as the right opinion enough to stop a conversation.

This ties in further with anonymity on the net which Louisa brought up and Al's question on what gives people the "right" to be named. Also, anonymity gives a sort of freedom to talk about certain things (like the inner workings of the tenure process) and both takes and gives authority to the writer, as their background is unknown.

A big reason that Easily Distracted exists is because of unhappiness with the academy, which got into the discussion of different university types and their potentials-- which led to musing on the differences between the humanities and the sciences.

Thursday: Kate Thomas: Syllabub [Anne brought fantastic lemon bars and carbonated juice and water, so 'tis a shame if anyone missed out]. Again, I refer you further to Anne Dalke's notes.

She's writing from a history of this immediacy of information dispersion as her studies of 19th century communication technologies shows. Just as an empire which grows steadily larger (England) needs to disseminate information more quickly and over a wider space, the internet is serving that function. To this extent, her "blogging" isn't a new phenomenon, but rather old-fashioned. It has a journal/column sort of feel in contrast to Tim Burke's and other blogs. Also, she began the concept of blogging/registering the blog with the idea of perhaps becoming a restaurant reviewer in mind.

Her blog is not overly link-laden, so is that a reason why she doesn't think of herself or her blog as "bloggy"? Or is extensive linking just part of the internet and it's super-connectivity? The few people linked on her website are mostly food people/an artist friend. Must link to people who link to you out of courtesy? How to respond to comments in the blog?: a big response to everyone at once, or to each specifically, chivalrous to respond? If don't respond to everyone, can one be a good "citizen" like the Becks and Posh blogger in San Francisco?

Back to the restaurant reviewer concept: problems with writing about local things on a non-local forum and the judgement inherent. Her blog is a way to get away from the academy (and archive), not to evaluate other things. That is why there aren't any political views or agendas. pushed on the blog, even though she has them and some personal comments are made within the characters she has made to populate the blog. It also allows the instant gratification of publishing without extensive peer review and writing for the sake of writing. Blog was not used when came up for tenure.

A reader tracked down her Bryn Mawr e-mail address and asked if she was Syllabub. Among other issues, Anne asked if she was Syllabub, which brought about: How much of one's personal life should one share on the blog? No names of self or B. Profile is blank. Also, a tie back to sort of nostalgic novels. All just a slice of self, which still gives character and personality with enough interest to keep the readers hooked, but without overloading the personal history.

Alienated from our food and academia."The Incredible Shrinking Public Sphere". Will the internet and blogs be able to help?

Starts writing when the URGE to write an entry appears. Then, a food inspires. Does research. Writes it all in about 8 hours at one go with heavy editing (specific attention to the feel of the writing). Edits again once it's in its "published form" before RSS feed readers are notified.

Variety of different class responses to her blog- and a short talk about food politics followed.