This is bizarre–I feel I

This is bizarre–I feel I have stumbled upon something big, or rather something mysterious. Mystery always makes things seem bigger than they really are. This is akin, actually, to when I discovered the websites created for the release of the movie AI. They were elaborate, and large… and mysterious.

Basically, I have discovered my first blog that is not a blog: Victoryshag.com. It’s a mailing list really. You have to sign up for it, but then you get a couple of back issues (mine were not particularly striking–but in hindsight, did give some background information) and then the daily email. I guess they are often love letters. But this one was a bizarre description of a strange proposition four women had made to the author of this blog that is not a blog. The four women all want to sleep-with/date the author. How crazy is that? How does a man (Dobbs, if you would believe the “From” in his headers) create such desire? I guess I’ll find out…

Somewhere in the process, (it may be on his website, I can’t remember,) the author claims that there are hundreds of people signed up for this thing, and that only 12 have unsubscribed.. ever. I am obviously intrigued, or I wouldn’t be writing all this. I don’t think I would be as curious if the letters/emails were presented by themselves, but to make things a bit more interesting (interactive!) the author appends a link to the end of each email.. back to his site for corroborating evidence. Today’s batch of links contained JennyJuice.com which I have even seen before, and enjoyed, (as I recall), and who is part of the plot in some way.

Question for further thought: How are blogs like real-tv? And are they appealing in the same way?

4 Replies to “This is bizarre–I feel I”

  1. hmmm. I think the similarities between blogs and real-tv are fairly obvious (both are attempts to bring non-fiction narratives into their respective medias) but what I was really trying to get at is the way both are essentially fads. My friend Peter sent me these links:

    blogwhore
    and
    blind date blog

    they’re both obvious attempts to bring real-tv-type-gameshows into the blog arena. They’re also both finished, so it’s interesting to sorta see the complete picture. I don’t think either one won a huge audience, or I’d probably have heard of it before (although I had seen blogwhore before, so maybe I’ve just proved that hypothesis wrong.) I don’t know, I didn’t find either one of them all that interesting, but I didn’t probe too depply. (I feel disdain for TV in general, much less real-tv.)

    Maybe the question I’m really trying to ask is: I’ve never really enjoyed narrative non-fiction before. Why blogs?

    Mon 17:58

  2. like real-tv? hopefully not at all.

    “not particularly striking”? sorry. will try better in the future.
    Sat 00:13

  3. grid,

    you’ll have to ignore my tv comment as i really have no clue what i’m talking about. i haven’t watched tv or listened to the radio since 1987.

    your recent comment makes it a little more clear that you’re talking from an artist or producer pov, whereas i was talking from an audience member. i was considering the processes that the reader/viewer goes thru and you were approaching it from a creator pov, i believe.

    you’ve never found narrative non-fiction enjoyable. i think you’ve been reading the wrong books. do you not enjoy biographies or historical fiction? for me, nothing beats a master at that genre… James Ellroy for instance. that man could write circles around the majority of fiction writers out there.

    perhaps the comparison of blogs to documentary filmmaking is more accurate than real-tv. from what i understand about real-tv, the shows are generally not connected by a narrative thread (and, actually, most blogs are not either). i’d argue that a consistency of character(s) does not necessarily make a narrative thread.

    since i’m busy rambling here, let me add this final remark: the reason that television generally blows and movies can achieve so much more is the approach to character. on tv (say, a sitcom), the central characters do not change or grow. it is their constancy that allows the show to be funny (it is our “understanding” of archie bunker or alex keaton that makes us think they’re funny). it is the central characters on tv that have the ability to change. however, we’ve nothing invested in them. in good films, or in good novels/stories, the growth of the character is exactly the point (unless the lack of growth is exactly the point, if you catch my drift).

    though i’m without any proof, i’d guess that real-tv hasn’t any character development. this is, in my opinion, the difference between good narrative non-fiction and real-tv.

    ps. and thanks, glad you’re enjoying VS so far.

    Tue 00:23

Comments are closed.