Lara Croft- The Ongoing Discussion

Wow, the lengthy analysis of Lara Croft in the artcle called "Lara Croft: Feminist Icon or Cyberbimbo?
On the Limits of Textual Analysis" was quite insightful. It is definitely relevant to my topic, so I may use it as a source. However, some of Kennedy's ideas were quite out there. The whole transgender bit involving a male playing Lara was a bit hard to envision. I definitely wouldn't have "consider[ed] the fusion of player and game character as a kind of queer embodiment." Perhaps I am biased though in thinking that Lara Croft is more towards the "cyberbimbo" side because of something I read somewhere. I don't remember where I read it, unfortunately, but it said that Lara Croft's chest "bounces". Ummm...is that not a male oriented detail or what?

I think it would probably help me form my own opinion of Lara had I played the game myself. I actually should try to play it in Green sometime. Reading this article and another one I obtained for my research "What Women Want" brings two opposing views into play, but I can't give my own insight without having played the game before. When the game came out, I didn't find myself wanting to play it because a strong, pretty girl lead would empower girls. Actually, I don't think I had a playstation when that game came out, so I wasn't even able to consider getting it. Anyway, before I digress too far, I'd have to say that while Lara Croft could be a potential feminist heroine, the whole protrayal of her as a sex object does limit that view. I do agree with Kennedy that many readings can formed of Lara, but as to which is the most probable, that remains to be seen. I'll have to get back to you when I play the game...hehe.

About the Blogging Assignment

Having a blog is always exciting since it's a place where one can informally speak their mind. For this reason, I enjoyed keeping a blog for the class. The way it was done this quarter was fine with me. I liked having articles to read and comment on. I was never at a loss for what I should write about, though deciding what to say about the articles was tough sometimes. I wouldn't suggest the research-log because I think students wouldn't be very insightful for the most part. I know that if I kept one of those I'd be most likely blogging about how I still need to conduct further research each week. A lot of us, as I am sure you know, are big procrastinators, so a research-log would most likely reflect this. Of course, I am not saying this is always the case, but I know that this type of blog assignment wouldn't be as effective as the present one. As for weekly blogs, I think it'd be difficult only because of how to determine what students should write. By telling the students to just blog once a week, the results would be interesting but varied. The comments aspect of the blogs I enjoyed, because it is neat to get responses to your postings. I definitely think that should be kept as opposed to a discussion. I think online discussions are fine, but maybe it'd be even better if they were somehow done on the blogging system rather than an academic panfora-type deal. That way the discussions would be less intmidating and more informal, thus easier to partake in. Overall, I think the blog assignment is fine how it is, but a few added changes could make it more interesting. Maybe doing one free write for one of the entries could help spark the discussion about how blogs are used. Blogging enjoyable (at least for me) because the writing environment seems more individual and personal. Hopefully it'll be able to be carried over to next quarter new and improved. :)

On Wikis

When I first heard that we were going to talk about wikis, I was really confused. I had never heard of wikis before (just like I had never heard of leet speak). Thankfully, we have to read about the topic we are writing about...hehe. Anyway, the whole concept of wikis is really quite interesting. A friend of mine showed introduced me to Wikipedia, and I was amazed at how much information it contained. Plus, it's free!! At the time I didn't quite grasp the fact that random people wrote the articles on Wikipedia (as opposed to random, but hired people). After reading the article "What is a Wiki?", I finally discovered what this "wiki" was.

The other three articles brought up some key issues I was thinking about when I found out what a wiki entailed. It's neat that anyone can edit the site, but that definitely brings up vandalism and trust issues. I would think that saving copies of the pages before editing would be wise, especially if someone was trying to ruin the wiki. I would think that the content and purpose of a wiki becomes its best protection from vandalism. If the purpose for making a wiki is to inform, like Wikipedia, I would definitely think only those who enjoy sharing knowledge would write. Perhaps my thinking that mostly professors and experts on the subject contribute to wikis is from exploring only Wikipedia. I can see where wikis could be helpful in the business world, though. Instead of having to tell someone to update a website, any employee could add to it after a meeting or make suggestions. I suppose the "ugliness" of wikis could cause them to lose their appeal since they'd have poor e-rhetoric in the visual sense. I think, however, that the overall conecpt seems pretty exciting in terms of new online communication where even the viewer becomes an author. My only concern is over copyright. I wonder if there would ever be a copyright issue within a wiki? Or do they already take care of that when you agree to contribute to one?