![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And all I've done is enter my name.
Dec. 29th, 2011 02:14 amI'm happy enough with my hobbies being private, indeed my basic life being private. You've perhaps been reading this for some time and how much do you really know about me? Probably that you do or don't like me very much, but I'd venture that you're a bit daft if you trust self-representation as an indication of what someone's really like.
Anyway, one of my hobbies is thinking like a humanities student, and another is twittering. Below is the contents of the last half hour of my twitter. I'm only sticking it here because I wanted to see it as a paragraph, and because who doesn't miss the good old days? What it all means is that I'm going to get some library books out, but coming to a reason for why was entertaining for me. Unfortunately I'm left to make my own fun these days, though I accept that mileage may vary:
I've employed a reductionist approach to textual analysis, but a shift in proclivities means I'll reexamining the auteurist model.
It's a misjudgment of how films are made but as a framework for study it creates strong narrative and human interest. What does this mean for our fair city? Reading more biographies and accounts regarding filmmakers - it'd give me something to talk about too. I've no specific interest in the industry, no more than I care where Vermeer got his paints from, rather the authorial intention and the art.
Ultimately all industry is where accountancy meets making sausage. I can get that at home. I'd like to go to bed, but I was shattered by 9 tonight. Had a nap, which was silly. Feeling academic tonight, which isn't strictly helpful. When I say reductionism as a description of a method like that I need to explain my mode of investigation. Just media/semiotics shit. Everything is more broadly an example of something simpler, more general, similar; you realise how dull generalities are, cherish novelty. Generalities are great though because you can just go "tt, old hat. It's just blah" about practically everything.
So that was that. I realise there's no actual content there, but it's me coming to a point where I might be able to get myself interested and have more to say about stuff in future. People are interesting, and the way they want to communicate that to others is interesting too. Equally to that, biography is interesting - some people are just really entertaining and knowing a lot about interesting people actually makes you interesting yourself. It just does. Strange that, but it so clearly does. I'm interested in how creative people discuss their methods and in gossip. That's me all over. I love hearing people gossip, and I very much love hearing people explain themselves. It's not even about the dissonance between how you see someone and how they see themselves that attracts me to it, I'm not perceptive enough to form such nuanced judgments about people's characters. Or maybe I am. I'm definitely not a gossip myself though, I hate telling stories and hate telling tales and yet I find my conversation a lot richer if I'm discussing a subject where I know a lot about the people involved and their views on what's happening. Anyway, more and better.
Anyway, one of my hobbies is thinking like a humanities student, and another is twittering. Below is the contents of the last half hour of my twitter. I'm only sticking it here because I wanted to see it as a paragraph, and because who doesn't miss the good old days? What it all means is that I'm going to get some library books out, but coming to a reason for why was entertaining for me. Unfortunately I'm left to make my own fun these days, though I accept that mileage may vary:
I've employed a reductionist approach to textual analysis, but a shift in proclivities means I'll reexamining the auteurist model.
It's a misjudgment of how films are made but as a framework for study it creates strong narrative and human interest. What does this mean for our fair city? Reading more biographies and accounts regarding filmmakers - it'd give me something to talk about too. I've no specific interest in the industry, no more than I care where Vermeer got his paints from, rather the authorial intention and the art.
Ultimately all industry is where accountancy meets making sausage. I can get that at home. I'd like to go to bed, but I was shattered by 9 tonight. Had a nap, which was silly. Feeling academic tonight, which isn't strictly helpful. When I say reductionism as a description of a method like that I need to explain my mode of investigation. Just media/semiotics shit. Everything is more broadly an example of something simpler, more general, similar; you realise how dull generalities are, cherish novelty. Generalities are great though because you can just go "tt, old hat. It's just blah" about practically everything.
So that was that. I realise there's no actual content there, but it's me coming to a point where I might be able to get myself interested and have more to say about stuff in future. People are interesting, and the way they want to communicate that to others is interesting too. Equally to that, biography is interesting - some people are just really entertaining and knowing a lot about interesting people actually makes you interesting yourself. It just does. Strange that, but it so clearly does. I'm interested in how creative people discuss their methods and in gossip. That's me all over. I love hearing people gossip, and I very much love hearing people explain themselves. It's not even about the dissonance between how you see someone and how they see themselves that attracts me to it, I'm not perceptive enough to form such nuanced judgments about people's characters. Or maybe I am. I'm definitely not a gossip myself though, I hate telling stories and hate telling tales and yet I find my conversation a lot richer if I'm discussing a subject where I know a lot about the people involved and their views on what's happening. Anyway, more and better.
