Cayce is a coolhunter. She tracks down upcoming fashions -- trends that will soon be referred to as "cool" by the mass public. To her, this usually means finding something authentic -- unique. Because of this desire, she abhors brand name items. She has a complete aversion to anything that is mass produced or has a "trademark" logo.
From the very beginning, the reader cathces a glimpse into Cayce's distaste for branded appareal. As she is getting dressed in the very first chapter, her clothes are described as having "every trademark carefully removed. Even the buttons on these have been ground flat, featureless, by a puzzled Korean locksmith, in the village, a week ago" (3). She wants to have no part in the trite nature of wearing branded clothing.
However, this dislike does not only come into play with regards to her own clothes. Cayce cannot even stand to see a popular, well-known logo anywhere. Cayce simply sees the Michelon man logo in a restaurant and has something like an allergic reaction to it. When she steps into a clothing store, her feeling is described as having "less warning aura as usual. Some people ingest a single peanut and their head swells like a basketball. When it happens to Cayce, it's her psyche" (17). It is explained that "Tommy Hilfiger does it every time" (17). She has such a strong aversion to Tommy Hilfiger because its entire unoriginality and mass production.
Because of her dislike of "pattern recognition," Cayce very much perfers to wear authentic and hand-made materials. Her favorite piece of clothing is her Buzz Rickson's jacket. She loves it because it is "as purely functional and iconic a garmet as the previous century produced" (11). This garmet is "virtually impossible to replace." This fact alone brings Cayce's love and attention to it. She loves to authenticity of it and detests the pattern recognition held by brand names.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Cyberbullying
To me, a true profile is one that honestly represents the person using it. If the person is pretending to me another identity, this does not equal a "true" profile. Also, if people are lying about details of themselves even if they are actually representing their own identity, this is also untrue.
I think it is now very difficult to make sure something is true. It's hard to trust any profile on the Internet for its face value. In my opinion, the original concept behind facebook made it a little bit more difficult to create a new identity on the Internet. To create an account, a person had to have a valid e-mail address from their college. I always liked this; it let me know, or at least think, there had to be some validity here.
As far as this case goes, it scares me! It scares me first and foremost to think that there is a grown adult out there sick enough to play with a child's mind. That knowledge is frightening. Because of this, I think the mother who created the false profile is entirely at fault. Megan's mom called the police when she was alarmed, but there was nothing they could do. Even if the mother didn't think or mean to cause Megan's suicide, her irrational, illogical behavior enabled it. Megan had no way of knowing her myspace friend Josh was simply her classmates mother. The mother, however, having a teenage daughter of her own, knows the mental instability of teenage girls.
The trolling idea is startling to me. People get on the Internet and totally disregard other people. By them simply being "profiles" or even just names and stories on the web, they lose all sense of being human. They are not treated with the respect and dignity that people are in other forums.
I think it is now very difficult to make sure something is true. It's hard to trust any profile on the Internet for its face value. In my opinion, the original concept behind facebook made it a little bit more difficult to create a new identity on the Internet. To create an account, a person had to have a valid e-mail address from their college. I always liked this; it let me know, or at least think, there had to be some validity here.
As far as this case goes, it scares me! It scares me first and foremost to think that there is a grown adult out there sick enough to play with a child's mind. That knowledge is frightening. Because of this, I think the mother who created the false profile is entirely at fault. Megan's mom called the police when she was alarmed, but there was nothing they could do. Even if the mother didn't think or mean to cause Megan's suicide, her irrational, illogical behavior enabled it. Megan had no way of knowing her myspace friend Josh was simply her classmates mother. The mother, however, having a teenage daughter of her own, knows the mental instability of teenage girls.
The trolling idea is startling to me. People get on the Internet and totally disregard other people. By them simply being "profiles" or even just names and stories on the web, they lose all sense of being human. They are not treated with the respect and dignity that people are in other forums.
Monday, September 15, 2008
wikipedia project
I copy-edited the Nat King Cole page.
I also copy-edited the Women for Sale article.
My group created the Monongalia Arts Center page.
I also copy-edited the Women for Sale article.
My group created the Monongalia Arts Center page.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
wikitasks
I plan to copy-edit the Nat King Cole article as well as the Women for Sale page. Women for sale is a documentary about Russian women sold as prostitutes.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Respnse 2
To fully understand the licensing offered through Creative Commons, I had to do a decent amount of reading. Honestly, I'm not sure I still fully understand when a person wants something licensed online. Do people license a simple blog such as this one? Or do they only license posts or websites they created that have new and unique ideas? I truly am not sure because I am very new to this whole posting my original ideas online.
This made for a difficult decision when choosing a blog. On one hand, I could care less what people do with what I post online. Since I rarely allow any of my personal thoughts and opinions to be splatter across the Internet, I figured I would chose a license that was the most accommodating to others. If for some reason, someone wanted to reference this blog, I'd say go for it! They could site me, but also change anything they wanted to -- no big deal to me. In this case, I'd chose the attribution license.
However, this seems to conflict with my beliefs about one's original thoughts. I think this is partly the reason I don't really express myself through the Internet. I have never felt the need to share with the world my ideas and opinions. I also am very skeptical about who reads what and what they want to do with my information. I don't know if it's that I'm a private person, I just don't like the idea of any stranger any where in the world reading...well, my thoughts.
So this leads me to the other hand. If there were ever a time that I felt it necessary to display my creation on the Internet (when it is not simply a blog of my thoughts or class responses) I would have to go with the attribution non-commercial no derivatives license. If my ideas were privy to anyone, I'd want them to know where they came from. I wouldn't appreciate the idea of someone seeing my idea or thought somewhere and passing it off as their own. I definitely disagree with the idea of altering my original creation in any way -- especially if it is being linked back to me. I have no idea what changes a person is making, and for them to site that with my work could be detrimental to my first idea.
All in all, I think it might take more than this license to get my creativity displayed on the Internet. I'm sill not sure how open I want to become with the world.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
This made for a difficult decision when choosing a blog. On one hand, I could care less what people do with what I post online. Since I rarely allow any of my personal thoughts and opinions to be splatter across the Internet, I figured I would chose a license that was the most accommodating to others. If for some reason, someone wanted to reference this blog, I'd say go for it! They could site me, but also change anything they wanted to -- no big deal to me. In this case, I'd chose the attribution license.
However, this seems to conflict with my beliefs about one's original thoughts. I think this is partly the reason I don't really express myself through the Internet. I have never felt the need to share with the world my ideas and opinions. I also am very skeptical about who reads what and what they want to do with my information. I don't know if it's that I'm a private person, I just don't like the idea of any stranger any where in the world reading...well, my thoughts.
So this leads me to the other hand. If there were ever a time that I felt it necessary to display my creation on the Internet (when it is not simply a blog of my thoughts or class responses) I would have to go with the attribution non-commercial no derivatives license. If my ideas were privy to anyone, I'd want them to know where they came from. I wouldn't appreciate the idea of someone seeing my idea or thought somewhere and passing it off as their own. I definitely disagree with the idea of altering my original creation in any way -- especially if it is being linked back to me. I have no idea what changes a person is making, and for them to site that with my work could be detrimental to my first idea.
All in all, I think it might take more than this license to get my creativity displayed on the Internet. I'm sill not sure how open I want to become with the world.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
