Social Network Bingo (Or, Hey, I Do Different Things)
I thought today would be a good time to talk about social networks (broadly defined). Since there are about 10,000 of these blasted things out there, it’s always a struggle to figure out which ones work best for whatever it is I want to do — talking about geeky things, writing, and politics. I’ve been pretty careful to separate some of these subjects from one another, in part because I (used to) think separation was important for aspiring writers such as myself. After all, politics and writing sometimes don’t go together, particularly when you say things that other people won’t like (a guarantee in this political climate). And so, across my various social networks, I’ve found ways to separate and compartmentalize my various interests (with some crossover). I won’t suggest that everyone should do what I do. Rather, I think it’s more compelling to see how other people do it. For that reason, I’d appreciate it if folks would comment below with their own explanations for how they use the various social networks. The following are the major social networks of which I am a part. For those that don’t follow me elsewhere, this list might help you decide where to follow and/or avoid me: Blogger (where you’re currently reading this, I assume) Topics: Writing, Genre Fiction, and Other Geeky Topics Follow: N/A I use Blogger primarily to explore the geeky things that matter to me, and to maintain some sort of online presence for my writing career (fiction and academic). As such, much of what I post here, if you don’t already know, is focused on genre fiction, with a side of writing (mostly genre fiction writing). In the past, I’ve included things like politics and poetry, but those topics have since moved to other arenas (mostly because I find they fit better elsewhere, but also because, if I’m honest, I don’t want this space to fall into the politics trap). Twitter Topics: Writing, Genre Fiction, Politics, Randomness, and Other Geeky Topics Other Uses: Linking to my other content… Follow: Friends, Colleagues, and Professionals Most of my Twitter activity is focused on genre, random things that I find amusing, and related categories. For the most part, I’ve found it to be a great place to interact with other SF/F folks, and have, as such, used it sparingly for political stuff (maybe 25% of my activity there has to do with political things). Likewise, I have found it a great avenue for keeping in touch with fellow grad students, many of whom follow me there. You’ll find me discussing a lot of genre-related topics there because it is one of the most lively places for such things (such as today, in which Mari Ness, Julia Rios, etc. and I talked about SF Poetry). Google+ Topics: Politics and Geeky Topics (w/ cross-pollination from my other ventures) Follow: Professionals, some Friends, and Political Folks (plus a lot of random people who periodically disappear from my list) The bulk of my G+ use is political in nature. In fact, of all the social networks I use, this is the only one that I use primarily to discuss politics. As such, most of my followers aren’t necessarily genre people (though there are a few of those), but folks who find my take on various political issues interesting (even if they disagree). The remaining, tiny percentage of posts is devoted to geeky things and my own various works (such as podcasts, publications, etc.). If you want to know what I have to say about politics, though, this is the place to go. You won’t find nearly as much discussion about such things anywhere else. Facebook Topics: Personal Stuff, Writing, Politics, and Cross-pollination from Twitter Follow: Friends, Colleagues and the Rare Professional Facebook is one of the ONLY networks I use primarily for personal communication. I rarely friend anyone there who I do not already know. As such, most of the people on my Facebook are people from college, friends, colleagues, and the occasional writer (most of whom fall into one of the other categories). While politics, writing, and genre fiction pop up on my FB page all the time (usually through Twitter), its primary function remains personal. Tumblr Topics: Poetry, Writing, Art, Nature, and Related Topics Follow: Friends, Interesting Posters, and the occasional Colleague Of all my various social networks, this one is quickly become the most personal (in terms of what I share). While I am sharing my own writing (poems and snippets from fiction), I’ve primarily been using it to explore various things that matter to me, such as art, life, my dreams, and more. In fact, this will probably become my depository for all the things that frankly don’t fit elsewhere (particularly, my poetry). Tumblr is uniquely designed towards sharing these sorts of things (also: porn, which I’m not sharing). While Blogger is also a great space for the personal, it doesn’t work so well for the things I’d like to do on the side, in part because my history on Blogger has pegged me as a certain kind of blogger. Tumblr, then, is filling in the gaps. —————————————————– What about you? Do you use your social networks in different ways? If so, how?
Retro Nostalgia: Legend (1985) and the Power of Innocence
(A different subtitle might say this: “A World of Oppositions, Stricken By Their Equilibrium.” This, of course, assumes I will follow Jason Sanford‘s story-title-generation process for these features. I’ll leave artistic license aside for now…) One of the curious things about Ridley Scott’s 1985 fairy tale — appropriately entitled Legend — is how desperately it clings to its fairy tale origins. I do not mean “desperate” in a negative sense; rather, I see Legend as trying to avoid falling into the trap of its own making precisely so it can maintain its format in a way that benefits the fairy tale that is its heart. Thus, what begins as a saccharine childish fantasy of naive, star-crossed lovers from different worlds (Princess Lily from the Court of Men and Jack from the Court of Nature) falls into the abyss of its darkest undercurrents (love, betrayal, darkness, blood, and utter wickedness) before it is righted by a terribly cheesy narrative reversion (it was a sort-of-dream) and a return to normalcy — Jack and Lily part, presumably to repeat similar events the next day, always a step away from “completing” their relationship (marriage, more or less). It’s perhaps because of this structural necessity that I love Legend in ways befitting greater works. Despite the narrative tricks, the sometimes too-cutesy plot points andcharacter quirks, and so on, I am drawn to the narrative’s return to a static universe. True, the Lord of Darkness and his wicked goblins (Blix, expertly played by Alice Playten, still terrifies me)* disrupt the perfect world of Jack and Lily by assassinating one of the two living unicorns and shrouding the world in cold and darkness, but all of his damage is instantly reversed in the last 10 minutes of the film when Jack is allowed to jump back into the forest pool and retrieve his love’s ring. The only indication that anything ever happened is the convenient arrival of Gump and his dwarf friends — themselves aids to Jack in his quest — with the two unicorns. Only even in that moment the world is magically righted again, because the unicorns cannot, as far as the film makes clear, magically rebirth young in a matter of seconds, thus proving to us that the only true change to the world is that of memory. Historical time is disrupted to return us to a special alternate world of “perfection.” For lack of a better term, I am calling this necessity for a static fairy tale world (a utopia, perhaps) the politics of innocence. Legend never shies away from its affair with innocence, reminding us from the start that Princess Lily (Mia Sara) is naive, perfect, inquisitive, and ultimately unaware of the very real dangers in the world — one of her “royal subjects” even tells her so in the opening scenes. Jack (Tom Cruise), too, suffers from this naivety, though with at least some awareness that certain “codes of conduct” should not be broken — which is exactly what he allows to happen. Innocence is so central to the story of Legend that it even dominates the conscious thoughts of the principal villain: the Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry). In a revealing scene — because, why not, right? — he admits his unquenchable desire for Princess Lily, calling upon his faceless father for advice, who tells him that he must “turn” her to darkness. After all, the very person whose existence as an “innocent” was required to end the joyous reign of the unicorns — Lily being a diversion and temptation of sorts — must be the object of focus here, not because she’s a woman, but because she embodies a certain fairy tale stereotype of a woman. I don’t want to read this movie as a stereotype of ideal womanhood** — naive, innocent, and in need of controlling. Why? Because I think a more compelling view of this film is to imagine how it operates through a variety of innocences, some of them products of a misogynistic fairy tale tradition and others governed by the profound static-ness of Legend‘s world. Nobody is left unaffected by the power of innocence, whether Jack, who cannot seem to grasp the fact that Lily is a “free spirit” who has no concept of boundaries (perhaps because she is a rebellious youth); the Lord of Darkness, who is compelled by desire to cross the social barriers befitting a, well, lord of darkness; or even the unicorns, who are just as tempted by Lily as by Jack (who, it appears, they trust well enough to let him know where they will be). This is the profound power of innocence, whether embodied in the ideal image of Lily (virginal, free, beautiful, and sweet as rain) or in the internal philosophy of a fairy tale, where innocence destroys itself, only to be reborn exactly where it began. Legend is only static because innocence is cyclical. For the world to return to its original place — a world of life, beauty, and wonder — no trace of the real consequences of the temptation of innocence can remain. It’s an almost childlike reversion, if you will — as if Legend were the child that had to be returned to us, pre-influence (say, pre-Janet Jackson). The audience, however, can’t return. Ever. The world might right itself, but we will always remember, like parents remember their children’s experiences, that something has occurred and that, just as innocence and light are cycles of power, so too are the darkest recesses innocence and light produce. The Lord of Darkness is right: he is in all of us, and he will return one day, perhaps in a different form, but returned nonetheless. Regardless, historical time shifts, because we know the history as it actually happens, and narrative time swings back around to start all over again. Rinse and repeat. Stepping out for a moment, I think it’s interesting to consider how this might apply to the narrative if we consider Legend either as a children’s fable OR as an adult