Disqus - Latest Comments for Rachel

Re: Steve Jobs on Reading

Rachel — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:07:31 -0000

Hey, guys.

It depends what your question is--are books on the way out, as physical objects containing printed pages with stories on them, or is reading, as a past time, on the way out?

I'm in the camp that says that people are reading more than they have been in the last 20 years. The internet, with the popularization of blogging, has cultivated an entire generation of writers and, therefore, readers. Maybe not enough people are picking up Moby Dick, but that doesn't mean they are reading.

You should've seen how Annie Ingram's English Language class reacted to the release of the Kindle--only threatening the relevance of a book could turn a class full of 18-22-year-olds into a bunch of grumpy old men.

Re: Steve Jobs on Reading

Rachel — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:10:38 -0000

Oops. Make that "Maybe not enough people are picking up Moby Dick, but that doesn’t mean they aren't reading.

And for the record, the talk of books sucked me in, not Steve Jobs. ;)

Re: Steve Jobs on Reading

Rachel — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:46:47 -0000

Actually, the Kindle has a revolutionary non-backlit screen that makes it no harder on the eyes than real paper.

I doubt I'll ever own one, but if I could have a Kindle with all my favorite reference texts on there, instead of carrying around my giant Princeton Guide to Poetry and Poetics, I'd be a happier person.

Re: Steve Jobs on Reading

Rachel — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:07:30 -0000

Okay, I get what y'all are saying here, but I think you're not taking into account that the very nature of how we read has evolved since the advent of this thing we call teh internets.

Reading used to be a solitary, linear process that now has been revolutionized--type is searchable now, and hypertextual. Someone mentioned Wikipedia--what's the theory behind reading Wikipedia? If you're anything like me, you start by looking up the name of a character in Wuthering Heights and find myself 8 links and 2 hours later, reading about the origins of bloodletting in British medicine.

The Kindle encourages this kind of behavior--no, it's not hypertextual, yet, but give it time. Ultimately, books may very well be on the way out, but given the popularity of blogging culture in the last several years, I'd definitely not say that reading is going out of fashion.

And one more thing--as long as books smell like paper, people will have a visceral relationship to them. I'm all about advancement (I love me some gadgetry), but I'm crazy about a well-bound book. Call me crazy, but I think there are plenty of book nerds who will continue to agree ages from now.

Re: Steve Jobs on Reading

Rachel — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:25:16 -0000

Other Rachel, I agree with you entirely (and not just because you have an awesome name ;D). For me, the Kindle would be about the convenience of having a compendium on hand--being able to universally search several reference all at once would be invaluable. But I doubt I'd ever use it for a novel or collection of poetry--reading is a tactile experience, and people who understand that won't give them up easily. Even up against the convenience that an e-book might offer, I doubt real books have a cultural expiration date.

Re: “Not Absolutely Dead Things” [Guest Post]

Rachel — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:29:58 -0000

Cool post, Joel.

...the current state of technology and our use of it does not provide for the sort of focused, un-distracted mental space that we traditionally associate with reading.

I think this is exciting. Think about the differences between the way you read and the way you think. Reading has always been a linear process--something that Modernists and Post-Modernists and Feminists and any number of other -ists have been railing against since the 19th Century. Thinking is anything but a linear process, to the point where a single thread of thought can take you not only through webs of tangents, but also fluidly through past, present, and future?

What if this popularization and availability of what you called "distracted mental space" merely signals a movement toward a more accurate reflection of the way the brain works? Already we see how comprehensive digital communication can be--after all, while drafting this post, you thought to include those hyperlinks and they're an essential part to what you're communicating here.

While I don't think I'll say Kindle = printing press necessarily, I do suspect that this device, at the very least, suggests a more organic movement in the way reading happens.

Re: Monday Links: February 4th, 2008

Rachel — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:04:54 -0000

Oooh, Lifehacker shout out. I like.

Re: All your (virtual) base are belong to us!

Rachel — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:33:23 -0000

Second Life actually terrifies me. I signed on once and never again. Creeps me out. I can't decide if the CIA being there helps or hurts...

Re: Six Word Essay Challenge: Go Now!

Rachel — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:32:37 -0000

Huh. Interesting. Do you know the origins of the Six Word Story challenge? Someone once bet that Hemingway that he couldn't tell a story using only six words. And he came up with the following: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

Is it a story? No. Is it compelling as hell? Yeeeeeah. It's funny you bring this up since the Guardian just had a piece about this very phenomenon: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/02/six_w...

Re: Wacky Weather

Rachel — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:11:05 -0000

I often tell people that I'm weather's bitch--if it's nice outside, it colors my entire world view. Which makes me wonder how I survived 18 years of Pittsburgh winters...

Re: Wacky Weather

Rachel — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:14:42 -0000

Ah, you're right--I totally overlooked TV! I may be weather's bitch, but I'm far more TV's bitch. :D

Re: Invisibility: A Violation of the Social (Networking) Contract?

Rachel — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:10:25 -0000

I'm using it right now. *cackles maniacally*

But seriously--the purpose of all this technology is to make life easier, and if people would rather lurk than having to have a conversation...I say let them. People who choose to be invisible do suffer from it. They don't benefit from knowing that people want to talk to them. Yeah, they've got all the control, but none of the intimacy offered by the chat medium. Does that sound crazy?

I'll definitely use it from time to time--for example, when I just want to check my damn email without getting sucked into a conversation. If you can argue for the problems inherent to having an invisibility feature on gmail, I'd argue that integrating email with chat to be a ridiculously distracting design decision. I like it, but it does prove to be a problem when I have to grant enough polite conversation before telling someone that I have to run...

Re: Get These Mother-Effing Snakes Out of This Mother-Effing Habitat

Rachel — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:50:57 -0000

I'll always appreciate Chris Rock's routine about when that tiger attacked Siegfried/Roy (which one, I don't know). That tiger did not "go wild." It went TIGER.

Put me down for freaked out by snakes, too. I read somewhere that every human is more or less hardwired to be afraid of reptiles and falling. I wonder if that's true?

Re: Gimme Some Stats… Stat!

Rachel — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:54:03 -0000

Hey, cool! I've been thinking of doing a similar study on my blog, with stats and all that. Apparently, I'm big in France. I use Google Analytics and it's a bit confusing to work with--at this point, I'm kind of bummed I didn't start with WordPress.

Hurray for interblog linky webs!

Re: RIP Sharper Image

Rachel — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:58:43 -0000

Don't forget the singing Elvis head: http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/produ...

How will any of us manage without a place where we can listen to the singing decapitated robot head of the King of Rock and Roll?

You're right, though--I'd say the Sharper Image fading into the background was probably a long time coming.

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Rachel — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:46:15 -0000

Oh great! I love the cooking podcasts--have you seen Jamie Oliver's? http://www.jamieoliver.com/podcast/

He's one of my favorites--I possibly watch too much of the Food Network. Thanks for the links!

Re: Blogging Makes You Healthier, Smarter, More Attractive…

Rachel — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:40:41 -0000

Huh! Interesting. I'd be interested in seeing such a study done on writing at large. Writing anything implies, even if just indirectly, that someone will read it, which definitely inspires warm and fuzzy feelings all around.

Re: In-Flight Infotainment

Rachel — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:47:43 -0000

Oh man, I love Sky Mall. Where else can you find stuff like this:
[http://www.amazon.com/NECA-42065-Freddie-Mercury-Action/dp/B000GPYMV2/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1201009786&sr=8-1]

Re: In-Flight Infotainment

Rachel — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:50:25 -0000

Oh, well, that didn't work even a little, did it? Just...envision an 18", singing Freddie Mercury doll, complete with mic stand.

Re: Peck or Touch?

Rachel — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:54:06 -0000

I'm always so surprised at how many people type with only a couple fingers. My freshman roommate was the same way, and she was really good at it, too.

I'm a touch-typist, and have been since before I was forced to take typing in middle school. I already know I'm heading for trouble down the line with carpal tunnel and all that jazz--I already have problems and have a brace.

What might force you to make the change to "correct" typing might be getting an ergonomic keyboard--it'll force you to learn, while also helping out with the geek factor of eventual hand paralysis via internet addiction. ;) I have one at work and it's helped ever so much.

Re: Peck or Touch?

Rachel — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:21:37 -0000

For sheer fun--I just took the typing test and got 92 WPM. Of course, that's only with a 93% accuracy. I instinctively backspace when I make mistakes, which definitely slows me down and dorks up my accuracy.

Re: Maintenance and Upgrade [Update]

Rachel — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:36 -0000

Wow. This looks great. Well done!

Re: Questioning Things, Vol. I

Rachel — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:55:39 -0000

I submit "For Your Consideration" as a title.

1. If every ad were targeted at my lifestyle, it would stress me out--I'd be more likely to buy things, which wouldn't be good. If ads were funnier, I'd dig that. More people falling down, please.

2. Everything I say is appropriated from somewhere else. Mostly from Buffy, but I go through phases of How I Met Your Mother quoting, too. The key to quoting things is to integrate them well--I quote Buffy but people probably don't realize it half the time. Then again, Buffy is a bit obscure, maybe?

3. No. I worked at a Boys and Girls club summer camp. Tough though work might be, I don't think I could go back to being on my feet, chasing down 7 year olds for 9 hours a day. And the field trips...!

4. Honestly? The guitar. Anything that doesn't have set key patterns. Oh, or the trombone! That shit looks ridiculous.

Re: Breaking: Davidson Sends Students to Big Game In Detroit For Free

Rachel — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:37:29 -0000

I'll totally brag that I knew about this at lunch--but then again, that's what working media relations does, I guess. How CRAZY is that? I keep wishing that I were a student now, but as Megan pointed out, we'd probably have papers due, ha!

Re: Pork Across the Pond and Here at Home

Rachel — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:11:41 -0000

Agreed. As my dad often says, "bacon is good food."

Now the question is: are bacon and cookies two great tastes that taste great together?

http://neverbashfulwithbutter.blogspot.com/2007...

Re: Monday Links: April 28th, 2008

Rachel — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:51:31 -0000

We have a Gormley piece in the sculpture garden here on campus, did you know? Lots of people rag on the art they picked, but I kind of dig the Gormley.

Re: Questioning Things: Vol. V

Rachel — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:27:14 -0000

Oh my God, this is something I struggle with so constantly.

1. Writing. Reading. Lame though it sounds, I want to be a writer and only continual practice can make that possible. Not being able to fit The Writer's Life into my work schedule is the biggest problem I have right now. In an effort to focus myself, I've instituted a schedule and everything, with a small measure of success.

2. I used to play the flute, but gave up freshman year at Davidson. It's a shame because even though I played for 10 straight years, I don't think I'd be able to read music any more.

3. Definitely with the writing. If I could afford to spend 8 hours a day writing poetry, I'd be the happiest, best, and potentially craziest possible me. Which is why I'm starting to make preliminary plans to head back to school...

Re: Bloggers: Responsible To Their Readers First, or To Themselves?

Rachel — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:05:01 -0000

Buhzactly. There's so much information out there, I find myself reading blogs not so much for the information contained within, but for the personalities they're filtered through. If I want to read the Entire Internet every day, I will, but most likely, I'm going to find a handful of internet personalities I enjoy and I'll peruse what they happen to be interested in at the moment.

Re: CNN Shirts: The News Is Now For Sale

Rachel — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:37:10 -0000

That's hilariously ridiculous. Just further proving the fact that our nationwide Fake News has a lot more integrity than the real thing.

Re: Movie Review: Iron Man

Rachel — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:20:44 -0000

Oh man, Iron Man was positively phenomenal. I agree with everything you said here...except I dug Indiana Jones. :P

Re: There Is Comfort In The Sound

Rachel — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:46:08 -0000

Late to the game on this, but I got so used to sleeping with my fan on last summer that I invested in a sound machine--white noise is awesome. I use Noise on my computer when I need to get some serious writing done. Silence can be a real downer when you're trying to productive. Weirdly, I find white noise to also make me feel more comfortable--maybe because it sounds like an air conditioner? Bah.

Re: “The Death of Mystery” in the Age of the Blackberry

Rachel — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:40:20 -0000

That is a really, really interesting observation. I've had a similar experience with my parents while watching a movie. "Isn't that somebody?" is my dad's favorite mantra while watching a movie---he'll happily spend the rest of the movie hypothesizing what else that actor has been in. He makes me feel like quite the spoil sport when I easily IMDB it.

Re: Monday Links: September 22nd, 2008

Rachel — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:48:20 -0000

C'mon! I thought, by attacking Babar, I already WAS ripping on the French! I hope you know that I interpret your defense of Babar as an overwhelming vote in favor of imperialism.

(P.S. am a big fan of Alf and lemonade, fyi. :P)

Re: Monday Links: September 22nd, 2008

Rachel — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:08:47 -0000

Babar bored me to tears. For that, he must PAY (by being subject to my inane ramblings online).

I do adore Fraggle Rock, so maybe redirecting our energies toward all things Muppet-centric is a good idea. ;P

Re: 05.08.09

Rachel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:55:47 -0000

Goddamn I love Star Trek. My mom is a big Trekkie (she says she'll put a down payment on my house if I get married in Vegas, on the bridge of the Enterprise) and she flipped over the trailer.

Re: 05.08.09

Rachel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:58:32 -0000

@ Ashish: Time travel is awesome. And EVERYONE knows that James T. Kirk was the biggest offender that the Federation had ever known when it came to screwing with timelines--the temporal police hated that guy! So it makes sense that time travel would be at the heart of this story.

</ geek >

Re: Does The Personalized Web Filter Out Diversity?

Rachel — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:12:14 -0000

A couple weeks late and a bit of coherence short, but good post, Jarred! I went to a panel discussion (http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x34706.xml) yesterday on new media, and it's fascinating how the older generation is so terrified that we're going to personalize our info intake to the point of becoming idiots. The thing I can't get past is: how is this new? The panel discussed how to save newspapers for a long time, and my thought: people who wanted to only read the entertainment section were going to do so. People have been selecting their media a la carte for a long time--much like any type of technology, the advent of "new media" just makes the process more efficient.

Re: Confession

Rachel — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:45:19 -0000

Nah. I don't think that it "works better"--I mean, I think that most people who use an online dating service "find someone." But how do we classify something as "working?" If it leads to a wedding and little sprogglings? Shmeh, I don't know. I do think it cuts to the chase, and is rather more mercenary than meeting people in the conventional (read: normal) way. It's also a little more vulnerable--people don't pay for a match.com account if they want to be douchebags. These are people interested in relationships. So...yeah, I dunno. :D

Re: Sometimes, context doesn't matter

Rachel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:26:47 -0000

Oh my God, that's brilliant.

Re: Your heart

Rachel — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:47:30 -0000

Hm. I'm not sure I get what you're saying: "it arises as legitimate because of its mere arising." I mean, doesn't the willingness of participants to use any particular tool validate its existence?

I think it "works" because people pay for it. For better or for worse, we human types need a push to get ourselves to do things that we deem unpleasant or potentially awkward--dating can be both of these things, and *blind* dating is definitely both of these things. When you have to make an actual investment of money, you're more likely to make an investment of time; you take it a little more seriously. I think that's why match.com "works" (people meet other people with few murders occurring)--everyone there has paid $40/month because they're legitimately curious about what will happen, and are willing to take a risk. The same can't be said for every schmuck you meet in a bar (or at a small liberal arts college...)

God, I hate that I'm a match apologist. Dang.

Re: The Minute Waltz - Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood....

Rachel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:17:58 -0000

One of my greatest weaknesses is baby videos on YouTube. This is one of my all time favorites. It's as though this child is trying to communicate that his brother is hemorrhaging to death, and his parents won't put down the goddamn camera. His cries scream, "I CANNOT COMMUNICATE THE SEVERITY OF THIS SITUATION MORE THAN I AM RIGHT THIS INSTANT."

Baaaabies.

Re: The Minute Waltz - Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood. Blood....

Rachel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:18:44 -0000

Also a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBSYD0dQCAw

Re: The Minute Waltz - I remember watching this and thinking “How could...

Rachel — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:45:14 -0000

Eventually, I wasn't allowed to watch this show because Cousin Larry said "Oh my Lord!" all the time, and in repeating him, I was apparently both slightly blasphemous and impolite.

Re: The Minute Waltz - Holy shit! The economy is so fucked. What does...

Rachel — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:46:46 -0000

Oh my God. When WWZ is upon us, I do know that money will be out the window--capitalism crumbles in the face of braaaaaaaaaaaains.

(but seriously, there are whole bits of the book about the crumbling economy, it's amazing)

Re: The Minute Waltz

Rachel — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:48:05 -0000

Yeeeeeeees.

Re: The Minute Waltz - How dope is this? It is currently my desktop...

Rachel — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:27:24 -0000

Oh man, I'm not sure I could hang with that--it's hot but makes me dizzy.

Re: The Minute Waltz - Dear Will Think for Food- This is for you. ...

Rachel — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:50:56 -0000

Tom--

I adore you. Let us discuss this more through the use of telecommunication with video soon, mmkay?

xo,
Rachel

Re: The Minute Waltz - This is not a euphemism: My Valentine’s Day wish...

Rachel — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:10:28 -0000

I prefer mussels, but those look tasty.

Re: Dear Friends, I'm proud of you.

Rachel — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:15:48 -0000

:)

Thanks, Tom.