happy coincidence

normal_7iplodpassemuraille.jpgI’m doing a bit of research on youtube for this paper I’m doing (and discovering in the process that deciding to ‘stop reading’, while a fabulous tool for getting the thesis done, has left me… oh, at least a few years behind the published world of academia), and have come across this neat article on M/C by Paula Geyh. Do go read it – it’s only a little thing, and does the nicest job of combining talk about bodies, urban space and D&G I’ve seen yet.
I am a massive big nerd for anything to do with bodies and dance/gymnastics/beautiful, rhythmic movement, and this stuff on parkour (which I’ve also heard referred to as urban junglism) is absolutely right up my alley.
To quote directly from wikipedia:

Parkour (IPA: [paʁ.’kuʁ], often abbreviated PK) is a physical discipline of French origin in which the participant — called a traceur (/tʁa.’sœʁ/) — attempts to pass in obstacles in the fastest and most direct manner possible. The obstacles can be anything in the environment, so parkour is often practiced in urban areas because of many suitable public structures, such as buildings, rails, and walls.

And to continue with a quote from Geyh’s article,

Defined by originator David Belle as “an art to help you pass any obstacle”, the practice of “parkour” or “free running” constitutes both a mode of movement and a new way of interacting with the urban environment. Parkour was created by Belle (partly in collaboration with his childhood friend Sébastien Foucan) in France in the late 1980s. As seen in the following short video “Rush Hour”, a trailer for BBC One featuring Belle, parkour practitioners (known as “traceurs”), leap, spring, and vault from objects in the urban milieu that are intended to limit movement (walls, curbs, railings, fences) or that unintentionally hamper passage (lampposts, street signs, benches) through the space.

So when we watch footage of that parkour stuff, we’re watching a combination of practical (yet wonderfully imaginative and creative) urban locomotion. But the bit that catches my interest is the repeatedly quoted line from Sebastien Foucan,

“And really the whole town was there for us; there for free running. You just have to look, you just have to think, like children.” This, as he describes, is “the vision of Parkour.” (Wikipedia article)

I like that idea – thinking like a child. This is play. But it also involes a creative and unconscious approach to physical activity. One of the things I’ve noticed about swing dancers – they’re particularly keen to try new things, particularly sports, physical activities, games, tricks and ‘stunts’. I think it’s because they’ve discovered that you have to just try things (as Sugar Sullivan would shout at us in class – “If you don’t try to dance it, you will never dance it!”), throw yourself into activities, even if you’re likely to look foolish or fall over. When you know the limits of your body, you can trust yourself to do things which appear physically difficult. And when you’re used to experimenting physically, you stop worrying about looking foolish or being embarassed.
As an example, I am frequently (if not always) the only woman leading in aerials classes. I hear comments about how leads (or bases) should be physically strong, and there’s certainly a degree of posturing by some male dancers in regards to being a base. But the truth of the matter is, if you have good technique and do moves correctly, you don’t need to be ridiculously strong at all. I’m no stronger than the average woman, and certainly not as strong as most men my size, but I know that I can lift my partner up onto my shoulder and flip her over. Because I know how to use my body effectively, and work with her body. You are in greater danger of hurting yourself or your partner if you enter these activities with some grandiose idea of your own strength, or, conversely, with the idea that you’re going to get hurt. In learning aerials, the conventional ‘female = weak/vulnerable’, ‘male = strong and protective’ is rubbish. Self reliance, good communication, solid technique and using spotters are key parts of safe aerials
But back to the parkour people…
There’s lots of talk about military obstacle courses and so on in discussions of parkour, and escaping and leaping and reaching (the latter two I quite like, as ideas), but I’m really struck by the emphasis on creative responses to obstacles, yet with a practical eye. Ostentatious flips are debated – are they un-pakour because they’re aesthetic (an unnecessary) embelishments?
But the part of this that I’m really interested in, is Geyhr’s references to flow:

One might even say that the urban space is re-embodied — its rigid strata effectively “liquified.” In Jump London, the traceur Jerome Ben Aoues speaks of a Zen-like “harmony between you and the obstacle,” an idealization of what is sometimes described as a state of “flow,” a seemingly effortless immersion in an activity with a concomitant loss of self-consciousness. It suggests a different way of knowing the city, a knowledge of experience as opposed to abstract knowledge: parkour is, Jaclyn Law argues, “about curiosity and seeing possibilities — looking at a lamppost or bus shelter as an extension of the sidewalk”

Flow is something that’s come up in swing dance discussions. I’ve mentioned it very briefly in my own work, but without using that term.
Dancers often talk about being ‘in the zone’. As with that notion of flow, the zone is the place where you stop consciously directing your body, but respond to the music, to the weight changes and posture and movements of your partner on an almost instinctive level. I think it’s important to point out that this point of flow or zone is only achievable if your body and reactions are at a particular level of ability. To make this work, you must have a degree of body awareness, a stability of core, clear lines of alignment in joints and muscles and bones, some level of fitness and a willingness to ‘give in’ or ‘surrender’ what I call ‘high brain stuff’. You have to stop planning and to just give in and move.
Needless to say, this is one of the most wonderful parts of dancing, and the point to which most dancers reach toward. It’s often the motivation for travelling internationally or interstate to attend exchanges, where the sleep deprivation and intense socialising helps bring that point of flow closer. It’s something that newer dancers don’t feel, but suddenly, at about a couple of years, suddenly do feel, and get seriously addicted.
The thing that catches my attention in the discussion of parkour is that this flow is about the relationship between body and environment. With dancers, it is about body and body and floor.
So go read that nice article, if only to check out the neat clip.
Geyh, Paula. “Urban Free Flow: A Poetics of Parkour.” M/C Journal. 9.3 (2006). 18 Jan. 2007 .
Photo from this site, a photo by a parkour dood, uploaded to parkour.net

youtube = great

215px-Bop-promo.jpg
Hey, homies, has anyone seen Birds of Prey? The telly series from 2002? It looks like exactly my cup of tea. I suspect it’s supercrap, but if I can watch Aquaman, the Smalls spin-off, I can certainly handle a little Batkid action.
I gots a look at the promo thing here (and here with the alternative, hawt Sherylin Fenn action) but haven’t managed to figure out which clip comes next.
Youtube = great.
…but dang this media convergence thing. Is it still telly if it was never screened on telly, but you watched it on youtube? Does the form determine ‘tellyness’, or is it the mode of reception?

telly update

I need to get you all up to date with the telly I’m watching.
As you know, I’m a big fat Smallville fan, and cannot justify this passion with any sensible reason. I don’t find the protagonist (or anyone else in the program) particularly hawt (though Lana’s real-life athletic ability blows my brain. I LOVE that she’s far more athletic and body-aware than Clark’s actor). I don’t much care about the story (though I do like the idea of a pre-superman Clarky, and have speculated at length about his eventual superhero/secret identity split, not to mention the relationship between Clark and Lex as possible motivation for their falling out – slash-gone-wrong!).
I think it’s a combination of speculative fiction-ness + bright colours + teen telly + serial narrative.
We are still waiting on season 3 of Deadwood. Now that’s the fushizzle.
We have just finished season 5 (or is it 4?) of The Sopranos, and while I’d really like to see the next season(s), I do find it a bit dark and distressing.
We have given up on rewatching Buffy and Angel, but you know.
supernatural-1.jpg Forced to the point of desperation, I decided to start on Supernatural. Browsing my local video shop, it was either that or Party of Five (goddess forbid). It’s ok, I like it. It looks good (though there are some dodgy moments – don’t pay too much attention to where the window frame is when the boys are talking while driving in their car), the characters are hawt (Lana’s boyfriend is here, as Dean – and much better cast), we keep running into people from Angel (Angel’s son, Fred and – most fabulously – Darla, in a top episode about faith healing) and there’s a big fat muscle car that would make Glen weep.
x35lrd.png
It’s the big fat muscle car that kind of set up my viewing for me, really.
Does anyone else remember Good Guys Bad Guys? I think, more importantly, does anyone remember a) the car? and b) Marcus Graham, gay man extrordinaire? Watching Supernatural, all I can think of is that excellent Aussie drama, particularly when the boys slip into their eternally-shiny muscle car.
supernatural.jpg Maybe it’s just that I’m geared towards romantic comedies with a supernatural twist, but I need to see a little unrequited lust action. As with Lex and Clark, I just know that Dean and Sam are suppressing deep, reciprocated, yet repressed desires. The whole being brothers thing? Ah, we all know it’s a sham, a cover up. And I’m sure I’m not the only one noticing this relationship – the doods are continually checking into cheap motel rooms together. And remember that episode Bugs, where they were mistaken for a couple investing in a property on a new housing estate (not once but a few times)?
I don’t really know what I like about this program. I’m easily scared, and get a good scaring each episode (sad but true). I get a bit annoyed by the excessive contrast – too much dark. Too much blue light. I know that’s the point and that this is a semi-horror show, but…
I’m also a bit annoyed by the sloooow meta-arc (is that the term – you know, the overarching story arc that links all the episodes in the season together). These are in part problems resulting from my binge-viewing (man, who watches telly one episode at a time any more? That’s crazy talk!), but perhaps also part of the first-season problems that happen with most of these programs. I’m also a bit yeah-yeah, monster of the week, but that could improve – look where buffy went from there.
I’m also a bit unsure of the gender stuff. So far (I’m only part way through season one), girls are to be ogled (usually by Dean, though surreptitiously by Sam on occasion… though he spends far more time looking at Dean), saved and then left behind. Except for that hitchhiking wicca chick. But I just figure, this whole program is so mega-masculinity it kind of topples over under its own weight, crumbling into delicious homoerotic subtext. No one does uber-macho like a gay man.
But if you’re looking for beautiful fannish stuff (and we are, of course), then you have to check out the Supernatural action on Misplaced Moments. If you’re a Buffy, Firefly of other supernatural fan, you’ll find plenty of other lovely things on that site.
heroes4.jpgAnd beyond Supernatural, we’ve also gotten hold of the first eight episodes of Heroes, which we’re… hm. I want to say enjoying. But goddamn, that’s some gorey shit. I don’t much like guts, and Heroes is riddled with it. I’d definitely not let a kid watch it, so I’m not sure what Channel 7 (or is 9?) are thinking with their advertising. I’m not sure about the gender stuff there yet, either. All fairly traditional stuff, and the writing is a bit ordinary (at episode 3), so I’m not expecting anything particularly subersive. I’ve also noticed a few too many continuity errors, which does not please me. But I need some good, solid telly action, on DVD so I don’t have to fool with ad breaks and not seeing the whole thing all at once.
shamless_main3.jpg
Shameless
, however, rocks the free world.
[EDIT: I had to add that pic of the Heroes doods because I’m a bit fascinated by the whole ‘ensemble cast’ thing in these sorts of telly shows. I remember Joss Whedon explaining that Firefly wouldn’t have really worked long term because the cast was too small – too few major characters to sustain a program over a long period of time. This is an interesting thought, and makes me wonder if it’s a marker of nowen days telly. Did programs like …um, name blank. That 70s cop drama with the two women cops. Anyway, did it have a big ensemble cast? Is it a drama thing, because shows like Raymond (gag) manage with a small cast. If you have too small a cast, do you end up in monster-of-the-week territory (poor Sam and Dean. Destined to travel the deep south scuffling with monsters til someone discovers they need a few more characters. Sigh)?
2nd EDIT: I forgot to mention. The thing that I REALLY hate about Supernatural is the way the supernatural stuff is always really evil. There’s no sitting down at a poker table to gamble for kittens with these doods.
3rd EDIT: Link to official Supernatural via Glenn’s interesting post. I am so five minutes ago.]

probably too long and definitely unfocussed

There’s been a bit of a scuffle going on around the Golden Bloggies lately (you can read an installment on LP, and I have to confess, I have mixed feelings. I tried to read up on the awards on the official sites, but lost interest fairly quickly (mostly because I couldn’t find the rules or the list of entrants or understand what was going on). I heard about these things first from Mz Tartan, then nick cetacean, then from some other people on some other blogs (I can’t remember where or when – it was over christmas and I was busy).
I’ve had a look at a few of the winning posts (there were a bunch short listed, and they’re being reposted over the next bit of time), when they’ve been linked to by other people, but mostly I’ve not bothered.
I think it’s because I’m not really sure there’s much point in a bunch of awards for blogs.
Frankly, the thought scares the living shit out of me – I really can’t stand the thought of there being people out there reading this mass of dance-nerdery and recipes (the swing dancer alternative to photos of cats, unicorns and purple cursive font action) and assessing it seriously. I read and write for a job, and for me, a blog – this blog – is a chance to just write and write and write and write and not edit (I just write into the box on movable type here – that’s why I have so many typos. Sometimes I go back to fix a post with masses of horrible mistakes, or to fiddle with layout). I can just write down a bunch of crap, add in a picture (if I can be bothered), click post and then walk away.
Writing here is a chance for me to write crap that has no real point, isn’t developing another point, and doesn’t necessarily make any sense. I like just floating ideas without citing sources or supporting arguments. I prefer posting here on my blog to participating on discussion boards, because here I have complete control and can just delete the comments made by people I really can’t fucking stand who give me shit on other online spaces. I love that delete button.
I like writing here because it’s a chance for me to keep my writing hand in when I get all blocked on my work writing. There’s nothing so debilitating or distressing to someone who’s job is all about writing, or for whom their entire working self is all about writing than to suddenly find they can’t string a sentence together. During those moments when I’ve gone back through a day’s worth of work and thought “Holy shit, I frickin’ suck. What the FUCK am I doing?”, being able to just open a tab of Movable Type, blurt out a bunch of ramble and then move on is WONDERFUL. And it’s because I know this writing is just for fun, I don’t get all blocked, and I don’t worry about whether or not this post is good enough for publishing, and I don’t try to write about things other people will find interesting and I don’t try to impress people. I write as if no one was reading. Ahaahaha. That’s a lie.
Sigh. Sometimes I do, anyway. Mostly I treat this as a chance to work through an idea I’ve had. That’s where all that dance stuff comes from – I have to articulate these ideas, and goddess knows I don’t see another postgrad/person-formerly-known-as-postgrad from one semester to another, so I need to do this this way. It’s a really useful process for me – creative, constructive, low-stress.
I could, I suppose, just write all this in a file and leave it on my desktop. Or I could keep a proper journal. But when I’m writing here on the internet, I feel like I’m writing as if there could, one day, be someone reading this. Not many someones – maybe just two, if I’m lucky. One of those will be The Squeeze, out of duty. And the other will be another googler looking for pictures of Dennis the Menace. So I have to try, at some level, to explain my idea. Or to write as if I was writing an explanation.
I think I’ve contradicted myself here quite a bit. Ah, fuck it.
But here are a couple of things I wanted to write about, in regards to this whole Golden Blogs thing (you know, I’m actually having real trouble writing today. It’s fucking hot, I’m sitting here riddled with hormones and trying not to think about the paper I’m trying to edit).
Mark on LP, using skepticlawyer’s comment, pointed out that Tim Blair doesn’t like ‘I’ in blog entries.
I can’t fathom that. Nor can I go on to read the comments in that Tim Blair post – play nice, kiddies.
That sort of action is the reason I don’t like to read conservative blogs. Blogging is meant to be fun (and blogging = writing blogs, reading blogs, posting on blogs, receiving posts on one’s own blog), and I really don’t need to read that rubbish. Head in the sand? Up my own arse more like – I prefer my own company to hanging out with meanies.
I don’t really understand how these doods can on one hand revile the use of ‘I’ and personal anecdotes on a blog, and yet also hoe in with incredibly aggressive personal attacks (mostly in comments it seems – I guess comments are the ‘less formal’ bit of blogging, huh?). It seems a bit contradictory to me.
I wonder if, perhaps, this insistence on no-I-word and less-on the ‘personal’ stuff is a manifestation of the idea that we should keep personal stuff out of the public sphere?* That the private should be private, and the public… I was going to make a joke about public assets and Telstra but can’t. It’s too hot.
This whole issue strikes me as odd, as blogging seems one of the most personal spaces or modes of address or whatever (look, it’s frickin’ hot, ok?) on the internet. If we remember the roots of blogging, we’re talking home pages. Home pages.
The Squeeze is reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late: the Origins of the Internet, which contains this little gem:

Rumours had persisted for years that the ARPANET had been built to protect national security in the face of a nuclear attach. It was a myth that had gone unchallenged long enough to become widely accepted as fact. Taylor had been the young director of the office withn the Defense Department’s ADvanced Research Projects Agency overseeing computer research, and he was the one who had started the ARPANET. The project had embodied the most peaceful intentions – to link computers at scientific laboratories across the country so that researchers might share computer resources. Taylor knew the ARPANET and its progeny, the Internet, had nothing to do with supporting or surviving war – never did…
Lately, the mainstream press had picked up the grim myth of a nuclear survival scenario and had presented it as an established truth.

I’m not sure how reliable this book is (though it seems better than most of the bios of the internet and computing getting about), but this point really caught my interest. I’d only ever heard the story where the internet had been invented as a way of localising US military computer resources and information, so as to avoid complete obliteration if one, centralised site was hit by cold war missiles. This alternative story really warmed my spirit ( :D ). It’s so much nicer to think of the internet as doing what we bloggers do with it – share stories of our everyday. So my everyday doesn’t include much talk about electronic switches and mainframes and hardware (so to speak), but it does have a whole bunch of fairly specific knowledge and practice which I can’t really share with every person in my life. It’s pretty specific stuff, and the internet gets me in contact with other people who share that particular discourse. And what could be nicer than finding a bunch of like-minded people with whom to share this stuff?
So the internet’s very purpose was to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and individual people’s social networking. Basically, the internet was designed for nerds to talk crap. Right on!
With that in mind, as Jeff Beck points out in a gentle observation about the Golden Blogs,

A few of the posts are worth reading but most are tedious, self-indulgent bullshit from self-important lefty academics. If this is the best the blogosphere has to offer, it’s fucked.

And that’s entirely the sort of sex I like. Really, we don’t use the word ‘blog’ for nothing: long and boring. It’s nice that people have high hopes for the internet (I, too, like to think that somewhere out there someone is tapping out a ream of Great Art or Important Contribution), but I think it’s ever so much more interesting to think of all the ordinary things people are doing with the internet out there in their bedrooms and studies and workplaces and classrooms and loungerooms. And it seems a bit silly to me to pretend that the internet has no domestic or private or everyday elements, when it is being made on people’s laps on couches all over the world (or desks or kitchen tables or wherever). Though, it could be fun to imagine, just for a minute, that I’m wearing a suit and glasses, my brow furrowed with concentration and Serious Thoughts, rather than sitting here in front of the fan in my bedroom doing a little nuddy typing and considering running to the fridge for snack before I cruise Youtube for more hawt lindy prn.
So I guess I do have one problem with the Golden Blogs. When I read, for example, ducky’s entry in Online Opinion, I was struck by the way reading this post out of context stripped so much of the meaning out of it for me. When I first read that post on duck’s blog, I’d been wondering where she’d been for a while. I’d been reading her blog for a while, sucking up the bits of her life she put online. For me, ducky’s story meant more as a chapter in her ongoing blog/life than as an isolated moment re-contextualised in an awards series. When I first read it, I teared up and suddenly wanted to do something for ducky, even though I don’t know her, have never seen her, and would probably have felt really strange talking about this with her in person then. The first sentence,

Some of you may be wondering why I haven’t been writing more about progress on my letterpress project and my arts grant.

which Tim Blair picks out as his special favourite in a list of ‘dreaded I’s’ means so much more when you have been keeping in touch with ducky over the past year or so. We’d read about her grant and been pleased and excited for her (yet also understanding the new challenges of the project). We understood that she was a big printing nerd and thought letterpress(es?) were the best things since sliced bread. For us, to not hear about a bit of ink-and-tickle was an indication that something was amiss. Or that, perhaps, there were other more important things going on in her life.
I think that Tim Blair has missed the point with this derision – he hasn’t understood that ducky was pointing out that her everday life had been interrupted, that the sorts of things that consumed her everyday had recently been pushed aside. That suddenly printing wasn’t at the fore of her mind, and her priorities had shifted.
It worries me that Tim Blair might be so profoundly lacking in empathy that he could read duck’s entry and not see it as an important bit of writing about something very important to duck, and through their assocation with her through her writing, to duck’s readers and online friends.
But then, thinking about it, I wonder if this sort of response was encouraged by the out-of-context-ness of duck’s post on Online Opinion. I remember being moved by the everyday language of the entry when I first read it. I was far more affected by her ‘normal’ tone than I would have been by wailing and gnashing of teeth. When she wrote

Lying on a bed crying just feels like I’m indulging myself too much. I know, go figure. It’s not like I don’t indulge myself in other ways.

On the one hand I thought, ‘you silly – of course it’s not being too indulgent’, but on the other, I thought ‘I know what she means’.
I had this feeling that she was somehow kind of suspended in that space where you move between uncontrollable crying, where you just don’t have that conscious control of your mind and body – it’s like the emotion and the sheer physical experience of that emotion have opened up a clearway to the rest of the world. You wouldn’t normally shed a tear in public, but you suddenly find yourself with snot and tears all over your face. You’d normally try to keep it together for the sake of your family who are also worried. So lying on a bed crying does feel like indulgence.
Because I had been reading her blog for a while, I was most moved by her bravery and trying to keep it together, but then I was really touched by this bit:

Actually, I’m telling this tale at this point in time because tomorrow morning at 10.00am I’m going under the knife to get Wellsley Giblet (see, we’d nicknamed it already!) scraped out.* And I’m scared. I want lots of blog-reading good vibes to steady that surgeon’s hand and keep me safe. Last time a stupid doctor perforated me three times, and I bled for two months. This is a different hospital, a more experienced doctor, but the same soft mutant fibroid-filled womb. It should only be a day-visit, and I should feel better in a day or two. If all goes well.
Wish me luck.

. It’s the way duck moved from bravery and clever writing and a touch of humour to suddenly admitting – I’m afraid. I’m afraid of being hurt, of things out of my control. And I just want you wish me good luck.
And I don’t know about the rest of the people reading duck’s blog, but I was wishing her all the good luck, hoping someone would hold her hand and tell her it was all going to be ok. Reading the comments on her original blog entry, you can see that I wasn’t the only one. But when you read the entry out of context, you don’t see all that rallying-round. All the people holding hands for duck and thinking of her. Not in the sort of in-your-face way we would have in person, but in the more manageable way the internet does it.
And when you’re reading that post on the Online Opinion site, you don’t see the ‘textbreak’s duck inserted through her original post, which I read as big breaths, or clear pauses, or literally, breaks in the text. And the fact that duck is a printer, who is all about the mechanics of words on papers, a text break, in her font, lent weight to the pause. Then, of course, when you’re just reading that one post on OO, and you haven’t been reading duck’s blog, you’re not reminded of the follow-up post, and this line, that stuck in my memory:

To his absolute credit, there is no pressure from BB’s side. He and Bumblebee have been seriously scared on both these occasions (more so last time) and they keep insisting that it’s totally my choice whether I want to go through it again.

This bit sticks with me because it so nicely sums up the complexities of wanting children, not wanting children, having a child whom you love and adore, a partner who loves and adores you, and perhaps most importantly, a child who loves and adores you as well. I think I was most moved by the BBs’ worry. I don’t know where they stand on duck’s resolving all those issues of body and work and motherhood. But they’ve definitely got duck’s back.
That whole follow up post, with the discussion of having children, when to have them, how to have them, the physical experiences of pregnancy and all of that – all of that is what goes in to deciding when and whether to have a child. Abortion and contraception and children and bodily health are all things that pop up a lot in the blogs, and in the month following duck’s post there’s been a few posts about motherhood by women who read duck’s blog.
That sort of trickle-on effect of a really good blog post can’t be indicated or measured in blog awards thingy which cannot map the temporal (as well as ‘spatial’) relationships between individual blog posts, posts on a single blog, posts cross-posted between blogs, between blogs, between blog authors, and so on and so on.
All of that talk about ampersand duck’s post has suddenly made me feel uncomfortable – I don’t know if I like taking apart ‘someone’ and their feelings like that, and I guess that’s the kernel of my argument: this is emotional and personal, domestic and private writing. Blogging isn’t always, but when it’s part of your everyday, when you engage with it by commenting and writing your own posts as well as reading (not to mention the emailing and snail mailing and face to face catch ups), it’s not just words on the internet. So why should it always be calm and cool and detached? Why shouldn’t I be in the words as well?
I’m not saying that everything we write or read on the internet should be emotionally loaded. Sometimes it’s nice to read or write a bit of cleverly cool and detached academic writing or a bit of well-crafted mass media. But social networks are complicated. We don’t ever leave our own persons behind when we write or read. We are always there, there is always a body in the net (to quote Katie Argyle and Rob Shields**). So why pretend that there’s not?
*I can’t be bothered revisiting Nancy Fraser and the feminist stuff on the public sphere, so just imagine I did, ok?
**Argyle, Katie, and Rob Shields. “Is There a Body in the Net?” Cultures of Internet. Ed. Rob Shields. London: Sage, 1996. 58 – 69.
Tim Blair didn’t think there were enough links in the winning OO blog entries. Does citation like this count? What is the importance of linking? Is it citing sources? Or would he like to see more text on cats? If he was a lindy hopper, I just know he’d like to see more of this hawt shit.

quick film recommendation

2236a.jpg
We went to see The Prestige at the Astor (a double session! What excellentness!) and it was GREAT. I mean, it was AMAZINGLY GREAT. If you can get to this before it goes off the cinema (good luck), do so immediately – it’s really worth it for the mood of a big screen. And this film is all about spectacle, so it’s worth it.
Will write more when I have more time.

monster rabbits

Remember this fuzzer?
Apparently he’s become a bit of an international celebrity. The breeder, not the bunny.

An east German pensioner who breeds rabbits the size of dogs has been asked by North Korea to help set up a big bunny farm to alleviate food shortages in the communist country. Now journalists and rabbit gourmets from around the world are thumping at his door.

Read the entire article here.
I can’t imagine an 8 kilo bunny. That’s fricking HUGE.