I'm sure you'll notice that the last two entries totally deviated from the theme of the previous ones. It's funny how that happened....
I started writing all of these posts and keeping them in a word document on my computer because that's what I'd done with the previous two blog projects I've published. I sat down one day to start assessing where I stand with literary academia, because I intend to give a presentation defending the importance of our Intro to Profession course, and I wound up hammering out a memoir of my experience at the newspaper. Totally unplanned, and it was almost as though I didn't realize what I was doing until I hit a stopping point and realized "whoah, I must have needed to get that out."
I broke it up and published two snippets here, because I felt the writing of that rant was an interesting experience--my 'venting' out things I didn't even know I needed to vent.
I also published those snippets here as somewhat of an experiment; I was curious to see how my vent would be received by others--does it sound bratty? Does someone out there relate? Is it interesting? Or is it whiney? I can't honestly say because I'm biased at this point in my life, I still have a lot of feelings about that job that I haven't quite processed. But I'm curious to know if venting on the internet can be valuable or if I too have succombed to the narcissistic "woe is me" trap.
Either way I think I feel better, and if I do come off as whiney, that in itself is some criticism I probably ought to hear.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Lost puppy
December 2009: GRADUATED.
March 2010: HIRED.
I was a staff writer in the entertainment section. I was thrilled and terrified, but I paid very close attention to the content of the paper and I reminded myself that they would not have hired me if they didn’t think I could do the job. After all, if I had any questions, all I had to do was ask.
Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles at first was my relationship with the other writers. There was no room for me in the editorial department, so I was placed in a cubicle on the sales floor. I assumed that as in any other workplace, it was important that I bond with those around me; so I bonded with the sales reps.
Meanwhile, when I made an effort to get to know the other writers, I was received with indifference, and quite frankly, it pissed me off. I was 23 and had plenty of growing up to do (still do…), so I took it personally. Looking back, my odd quirkiness may have come off as pretty obnoxious; though I was sincere underneath, I’m sure they felt I was full of myself when I’d waltz into their offices and try to joke with them. In my mind, we were already friends, because we all had the same exciting job at the same paper. Another naïve quality of my 23-year-old self. Their aloofness toward the new writer appalled me; I assumed that as writers, we worked together for a common cause: to put out one heck of a good newspaper. After all, it’s no secret that print media is not exactly a booming industry anymore, and for all of us to have this job, I expected more enthusiasm and camaraderie. I expected a real team. Instead, I found disgruntled, standoffish reporters who acknowledged me once a week, and that was on deadline day when we swapped pages to proof.
Still, it was important to me that I break through and bond with these people. I would overhear them laughing and cutting up, and it made me sad; I’m funny. I thought they were funny. I thought they were smart, I thought their stories were interesting, and I really wanted their guidance. So I kept at it. And somehow, I got through, and I made some friends. But to my dismay, there were no mentors among my friends.
We were on our own. Unless some real stuff was going down, we were expected to be our own boss.
…I was a terrible boss.
March 2010: HIRED.
I was a staff writer in the entertainment section. I was thrilled and terrified, but I paid very close attention to the content of the paper and I reminded myself that they would not have hired me if they didn’t think I could do the job. After all, if I had any questions, all I had to do was ask.
Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles at first was my relationship with the other writers. There was no room for me in the editorial department, so I was placed in a cubicle on the sales floor. I assumed that as in any other workplace, it was important that I bond with those around me; so I bonded with the sales reps.
Meanwhile, when I made an effort to get to know the other writers, I was received with indifference, and quite frankly, it pissed me off. I was 23 and had plenty of growing up to do (still do…), so I took it personally. Looking back, my odd quirkiness may have come off as pretty obnoxious; though I was sincere underneath, I’m sure they felt I was full of myself when I’d waltz into their offices and try to joke with them. In my mind, we were already friends, because we all had the same exciting job at the same paper. Another naïve quality of my 23-year-old self. Their aloofness toward the new writer appalled me; I assumed that as writers, we worked together for a common cause: to put out one heck of a good newspaper. After all, it’s no secret that print media is not exactly a booming industry anymore, and for all of us to have this job, I expected more enthusiasm and camaraderie. I expected a real team. Instead, I found disgruntled, standoffish reporters who acknowledged me once a week, and that was on deadline day when we swapped pages to proof.
Still, it was important to me that I break through and bond with these people. I would overhear them laughing and cutting up, and it made me sad; I’m funny. I thought they were funny. I thought they were smart, I thought their stories were interesting, and I really wanted their guidance. So I kept at it. And somehow, I got through, and I made some friends. But to my dismay, there were no mentors among my friends.
We were on our own. Unless some real stuff was going down, we were expected to be our own boss.
…I was a terrible boss.
Post college: The Beginning
After I graduated in December 2009, I left the English department still hungry for more classes, but my time had come and I embraced it. I took that enthusiasm for learning and thrust myself into finding a job that would enable me to keep using my English degree. I knew I wanted to write, and my whimsical dream of being a real writer who wrote books and stories and movies (a dream I still have…) was in the back of my mind, so I privately incorporated that into my job search.
I decided that I needed to polish and expand my writing, and that would mean writing in a way I wasn’t used to. I looked into journalism.
I bought a book called “From B.A. to Payday,” and I found it incredibly useful. I followed the suggestions for the cover letters, for the resumes, for the interviews—all which urged that with my English degree and little relevant work experience, I was to sell my skills.
After a few interviews and a discouraging drought with no call-backs, I kept after this one newspaper that I felt was really promising after the interview. I strategically ‘harrassed’ them, so to speak; I had interviewed with two gentlemen, and I alternated between emailing one the first week, calling the other the second week, calling the first the next week, emailing the second the next week, and repeated the cycle until finally—they agreed to interview me a second time.
I got the job.
I decided that I needed to polish and expand my writing, and that would mean writing in a way I wasn’t used to. I looked into journalism.
I bought a book called “From B.A. to Payday,” and I found it incredibly useful. I followed the suggestions for the cover letters, for the resumes, for the interviews—all which urged that with my English degree and little relevant work experience, I was to sell my skills.
After a few interviews and a discouraging drought with no call-backs, I kept after this one newspaper that I felt was really promising after the interview. I strategically ‘harrassed’ them, so to speak; I had interviewed with two gentlemen, and I alternated between emailing one the first week, calling the other the second week, calling the first the next week, emailing the second the next week, and repeated the cycle until finally—they agreed to interview me a second time.
I got the job.
...on humans & machines
"But interestingly, people, when entering cyberspace, sometimes reduce themselves to the shallow, disjointed, and cliche-ridden persona that can be mimicked by information technology and so become co-conspirators of their confusions about who is who."
WOW.
Just when I think I'm an articulate communicator, I encounter a quote like that. My previous blog was basically summarized in its entirety within the first half of that quote. I'm feelin' sheepish over here.
In class today we discussed another fascinating hand-out provided by our ever-so-wise instructor, Dr. Sara Hillin. The handout, "An interview/dialogue with Albert Borgmann and N. Katherine Hayles on Humans and Machines," is, well, an interview with the aforementioned characters. But it really struck home with me--I'm embarking on a voluntary project for my Intro to Profession class, and this material reinforced my argument enormously. But I digress...the interview itself is worth revisiting.
WOW.
Just when I think I'm an articulate communicator, I encounter a quote like that. My previous blog was basically summarized in its entirety within the first half of that quote. I'm feelin' sheepish over here.
In class today we discussed another fascinating hand-out provided by our ever-so-wise instructor, Dr. Sara Hillin. The handout, "An interview/dialogue with Albert Borgmann and N. Katherine Hayles on Humans and Machines," is, well, an interview with the aforementioned characters. But it really struck home with me--I'm embarking on a voluntary project for my Intro to Profession class, and this material reinforced my argument enormously. But I digress...the interview itself is worth revisiting.
Hayles touches on a concept she calls "the transformation from the human to the posthuman," which as I interpreted it, occurs within our relationship with cyberspace and other technologies. Cyberspace itself is defined by Borgmann as "the realm of electronically and digitally mediated information (soon to include television)", where in the "realm of leisure and consumption...cyberspace very much resembles television, except that cyberspace is much more diverse and allows for (increasingly easy) interaction." Ultimately, this leads to the profound conclusion: "The temptation to entrust one's curiosity and desires primarily to cyberspace will be even greater than it is now."
Though Hayles argues that "the idea that humans will 'live' in cyberspace will last very long" and that it is "clear to most people...that they have real lives in the real world", I do feel that society's idea of the real world is increasingly merging with that of the 'world' within cyberspace.
How people selectively disregard what happens in cyberspace is an example; people often enter into personal conflicts with one another in social networking sites as a result of the liberating freedom of speech, which turns into uninhibited social behavior in these realms. However, when one party has perhaps gotten a little carried away with his or her social behavior in a networking site, they happily excuse themselves from responsibility and instead act as a victim of the site itself: "It's just Facebook. It's just Myspace. That's why I should probably delete mine, it all is just a bunch of drama."
Basically, people use the internet to behave just as they wish they could in reality, but when they have 'misbehaved' or something like that, they absolve themselves of accountability by turning on the internet as though it is its own entity; like some wild, unpredictable animal that sometimes you can play with, but only with caution. I feel that this is when people begin to mistake what is reality and what is merely 'cyberspace.'
But because human beings abuse the technology does not mean it is not a valuable tool; as Hayles urges, we must "begin to think in more sophisticated ways about how human-computer interactions can be fruitful and richly articulated."
Now, for my final thought.
Sometimes I worry that my concerns about internet behavior are limited to a small group of goofballs that would behave this way outside of cyberspace if there was no social networking. But the fact is, the 'small' group of goofballs is not only growing, but it has gravitated toward the weakest members of society--teenagers. I'll be 25 in December, so I remember all too clearly how hard it is to be a teenager. The hormones, the hormones, the hormones....are the root of all terrible things teenager. And their confused, misguided relationship with technology is frightening. At a time when you think everything you say, think and do is correct, teenagers are using the internet to indulge themselves and each other in their wildly absurd and neurotic philosophies about life, and brutally condemning one another in retaliation when disagreements occur. Take this charming young gentleman, for example.
He's not alone, I promise.
Though Hayles argues that "the idea that humans will 'live' in cyberspace will last very long" and that it is "clear to most people...that they have real lives in the real world", I do feel that society's idea of the real world is increasingly merging with that of the 'world' within cyberspace.
How people selectively disregard what happens in cyberspace is an example; people often enter into personal conflicts with one another in social networking sites as a result of the liberating freedom of speech, which turns into uninhibited social behavior in these realms. However, when one party has perhaps gotten a little carried away with his or her social behavior in a networking site, they happily excuse themselves from responsibility and instead act as a victim of the site itself: "It's just Facebook. It's just Myspace. That's why I should probably delete mine, it all is just a bunch of drama."
Basically, people use the internet to behave just as they wish they could in reality, but when they have 'misbehaved' or something like that, they absolve themselves of accountability by turning on the internet as though it is its own entity; like some wild, unpredictable animal that sometimes you can play with, but only with caution. I feel that this is when people begin to mistake what is reality and what is merely 'cyberspace.'
But because human beings abuse the technology does not mean it is not a valuable tool; as Hayles urges, we must "begin to think in more sophisticated ways about how human-computer interactions can be fruitful and richly articulated."
Now, for my final thought.
Sometimes I worry that my concerns about internet behavior are limited to a small group of goofballs that would behave this way outside of cyberspace if there was no social networking. But the fact is, the 'small' group of goofballs is not only growing, but it has gravitated toward the weakest members of society--teenagers. I'll be 25 in December, so I remember all too clearly how hard it is to be a teenager. The hormones, the hormones, the hormones....are the root of all terrible things teenager. And their confused, misguided relationship with technology is frightening. At a time when you think everything you say, think and do is correct, teenagers are using the internet to indulge themselves and each other in their wildly absurd and neurotic philosophies about life, and brutally condemning one another in retaliation when disagreements occur. Take this charming young gentleman, for example.
He's not alone, I promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)