stevendkrause.com

I’m writing this about 20 minutes before Will and I have to leave for the airport to go back to Detroit while sitting on the patio of my parents’ condo, and it occurs to me that this is pretty much the first time on this trip where it’s been even remotely warm enough to sit outside for any amount of time.  Jeesh.

Will was off school this week and because I’m teaching online (and thus a little more flexible in my whereabouts) and because we didn’t spend as much time with my parents at Christmas as we probably should have, Will and I came down here for a few days.  Annette, unfortunately, still was teaching/working, and (even more unfortunate) watching over a kinda sick dog.

It’s been a pleasant enough visit. The highlight clearly was Mardi Gras, which was a much bigger deal down here in Southern Alabama than I thought.  We didn’t make it into Mobile for the big parades, which was a shame since they claim to be “the original” Mardi Gras (take that, copy-cat New Orleans!), but the local parade through Gulf Shores was a lot of fun. Here’s a link to some picts; here’s my favorite chunks of video, me catching one of the things commonly thrown from the floats, moon pies:

Will and I also spent a very cool afternoon climbing around the battleship USS Alabama and the submarine USS Drum while my parents stayed back and read.  At first, I thought my parents were being party-poopers, but once I got on board, I understood:  it was a lot of fun, but the chutes and ladders and tiny doors mean it’s a little like climbing around in the tubes at Chuck E. Cheese.

And we saw an old fort, and we were at a thing where they shot off an old canon… wow, very military themed, I guess.  I “ran”/walked one day on the beach, which was pretty good exercise albeit kind of cold.

All in all, a nice enough visit, though I don’t know if I’ll be back anytime soon.  My parents are talking about going someplace different next year, and to be honest, I have a hard time making seeing me and Annette making our own vacation kind of trip here. But the moon pies are good.

From a couple of different places, I came across this Mashable article, “Your Brain Can’t Handle Your Facebook Friends,” suggests that according to Dunbar’s number, the number of people you can really be “friends” with is 150.  This reminds me of article by Clive Thompson in the current issue of WIRED, “In Praise of Obscurity,” in which he talks about how when an audience becomes too large, it no longer is “social.”  He uses the example of a popular Twitter-er (???) named Maureen Evans who started tweeting recipes, became hugely popular (13,000 followers), and said the conversation between users just stopped. I’ll post a link once WIRED puts one up, probably when the next issue comes out.

First off, I blogged about this very phenomenon back in 2007 here, in talking about both Facebook and also EMUTalk.org and my struggling (dying?) “Blogs as Writerly Spaces” project.  (Perhaps I can count this post as something that will allow me to check off “worked on scholarship today” from my to do list.)  As I noted back then, since I think the readership of this blog is generally pretty small, I don’t need a lot of rules; on the other hand, with EMUTalk.org, especially when it was routinely getting 600-1000 hits a day (that’s fallen off to about half of that now), I did indeed need to set up rules.  In that sense, the Dunbar number seems to be about a threshold for organization as much as anything else.  If you have a group of people who like to play ultimate frisbee or pick-up basketball or softball every Friday night at a particular park and that group is less than 150 or so people, then you probably don’t need much in the ways of “rules.”  But if that group gets above 150, then I suspect you need to start forming a “league” with organized teams, schedules, etc.

Second, this all begs once again the definition of “friend,” something that has been a little easier to sort out with Facebook as of late thanks to its new “list” feature.  I think in the context of Facebook, people have basically over-valued and/or misinterpreted the word “friend.” In “real life,” I think of a friend as someone I either know quite well and engage in activities with on a regular basis (e.g., family friends, golfing friends, people I invite to my house for a party or something, etc.), people I know pretty well but only catch up with once in a while (e.g., many/most people at work, friends who live some distance away, etc.), or people I still know but are from a more distant past and who I haven’t necessarily even spoken with in some time.  This last category is a big one on Facebook:  we all have “friended” people from high school or college who we haven’t seen or spoken with in decades and who we aren’t especially interested in reconnecting with in “real life” again now, but who are still a kind of friend.

I have “real life” friends on Facebook, but besides “real” friends, most of my Facebook friends fall into the categories of “colleagues in my field,” people at EMU, and/or students.  No offense to any of these folks, but that y’all aren’t really my friends in the real world friend sense, right?

Third, I guess the other thing that comes up especially in the Thompson article is my concept/understanding of who I am “speaking” with when I post online, be that space on Facebook, Twitter, this or some other blog.  This may be kind of “old skool,” but I still work from the assumption that anything I post online has the potential to be read by anyone on the planet; therefore, I would never post any sort of personal thing which I would be concerned about some stranger reading.  You’re not going to get any “weird rash on my hands not going away” posts from me (btw, I have no rashes).  And if I post something like “ate tuna sandwich,” it is only because I don’t really care if anyone knows that I ate a tuna sandwich.

The tricky thing about this is trying to figure out those borders between the actually personal, the things you really would only tell to close friends, and everything else.  This is nothing new, of course; what makes it a little different now is that the sheer volume of people on networks like Facebook means that there is inevitably a learning curve for both writers and readers about the shifting definition of “Too Much Information.”  I mean, I have FB “friends” who do seem to think that posting about that mysterious rash is fair game; conversely, I also have FB “friends” who would comment on my lunch selection “Ew, TMI.”  So it goes with emerging medias, right?

BTW, today I’m going to have left-over pork loin for lunch.  If it isn’t too freezer-burned.

This was on Saturday:

I wasn’t planning on writing anything else here until after the holidaze, but Annette, Will, and I went to see Avatar this afternoon and I felt compelled to write some thoughts before going off to bed.

Before I get to the (potential) spoilers, let me say this:  I enjoyed the movie quite a bit– perhaps not as much as Will and Annette, but still quite a bit.  It’s certainly worth seeing in the theater, preferably in 3-D and in an I-Max theater.  It looked absolutely fantastic and that in and of itself made the whole thing worth it.  Though one problem I have with the 3-D is that I wear glasses, and I have to say I don’t think the glasses over the glasses thing works that great.  I’m looking forward to the not so distant future in which the glasses are not necessary. Go and see it, you’ll be glad you did.

That said, I’m not sure this was a “great” movie or this generation’s Star Wars or whatever other hyperbole you want to apply.  I think the main problem/limitation I saw in the movie is that is completely derivative of so many other movies over the last decade or so.  More on which movies– along with many MANY spoilers– after the jump.

Continue Reading »

Actually, there were shadow puppets too….

Anyway, here’s a not very good set of clips from the Dreamland theater production of “The History of Ypsilanti: A Puppet Show” and walking around at the Shadow Art Fair from yesterday:

A lot of family life and energy around the house lately has involved Will’s participation in the Greenhills Middle School production of “The Revenge of the Space Pandas, or, Binky Rudich and the Two-Speed Clock.”

Here’s a link to a Flickr set of a few pictures and videos.

Now, I’m not going to critique the actual performance/production, because my son was in it (basically as an extra, though he did have one scene as “cameraman”) and hey, it was a middle school play! It was both cute and a bit “rough,” with some very charming and entertaining moments.  But of course it was wonderful, at least from my point of view.  Still, the play itself– wow that was weird.

It’s a David Mamet play he wrote in the late 1970s.  Binky (along with his friend Vivian and his sheep Bob) invents/discovers a “two-speed clock” that somehow allows the trio to travel to a different planet or dimension called Crestview which is ruled by George Topax and which is populated with Crestviewians and Space Pandas.  Topax wants to take and keep (and kill?) Bob the sheep because he wants a sweater.  Hijinks ensue.

Now, on the plus-side, there are funny and absurd moments, and some moments of that staccato Mamet dialog.  No f-bombs or other vulgarities obviously, but there were moments where you do have some of the kind of rhythms of language you see in other Mamet work.  But what’s the deal with the Space Pandas?  What’s the relationship between them and the Crestviewians?  And couldn’t they just, you know, sheer Bob and give the Topax guy a sweater?  And so forth.

Like I said, weird weird weird.

But like I also said, the Greenhills folks did a fine job of it.  Originally, Will wanted a bigger part, but to be honest, I’m not sure he would have had the energy for it.  He’s been pretty pooped this week, and his was a small part.  And he’s not crazy about the make-up.  But there will be some production next year, and we’ll see what he decides to do then.

This evening, Annette and Will and I went to see a special showing of Where the Wild Things Are, which was a fundraiser for the very excellent 826 Michigan. It was a fantastic event.  We were at the Michigan Theater far too early (5:30-ish) because it was a sell-out and we wanted to make sure that all of our ducks were in a row.  There was already a good 40 or so people in line all waiting for their “will call” tickets when some semi-official person came out and told the crowd that no one with a cell phone that could take a photo would be admitted.  My plans to take a series of still pictures of the movie from my iPhone was thwarted.  Of course, while in the theater and during the movie, I saw PLENTY of people with iPhones and cell phones, but never mind that.

Anyway, after a quick dinner, we got ourselves situated in our seats and enjoyed Michigan Theater organ music.  The movie was a sell-out, but not completely; the balcony was closed, as was the back part of the main level.  I overheard someone who seemed to know what they were talking about who said something about how Warner Brothers (the movie’s distributor) set some pretty strict limits on how many people could attend these preview screenings.  Still, I’ll bet there was close to 1,000 people there.

After some introductions about 826 Michigan, Dave Eggers and Amy Sumerton (who is the program director person for 826) came out for a little small-talk and Q&A about various things about the movie.  My favorite question was actually asked by my wife, who asked what did Maurice Sendak think about all of this.  Apparently, Spike Jonze (the movie’s director and co-writer with Eggers) has known Sendak for quite a while, and he gained Sendak’s blessing for making the movie.  Eggers also said that Sendak was involved in the process pretty much throughout, from commenting on aspects of the script to the film itself.

Then FINALLY, showtime, after a rather amusing little short film with Sendak telling a story about himself attending the World’s Fair back in the 1930s.  A short review and some very modest spoilers after the jump, but I will say this:  it’s a great, beautiful, complex movie, and one well worth seeing on the big screen.  Apparently, there is an IMAX version, and I could see that being worth the experience.

Continue Reading »

In a previous post, I described my view from the Great Wolf Lodge; here it is:

Oh, and also the previously mentioned bird shit:

The whole set of our Traverse City photos is available here, for the truly curious.

Oh, and PS:  if you are looking at this in early August 2009, the header at the top is Will at the dune climb in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.

I’m sitting here in Traverse City on the patio of my hotel writing this post.  I’ve got somewhat dicey internet access, and there is a fair amount of bird shit on the patio because of a nest that is in the eaves above.  Across the way, there’s a fenced-in small herd (10 or so?) of buffalo.  Somewhat close to nature, I suppose.  Will is watching Spongebob while playing computer games, and Annette is reading and napping.  Somewhat close to home, too.

We’re up here because I’m teaching a course called Technology for Teaching and Learning, which is offered as part of the EMU continuing ed program in Traverse City.  Basically, my concept of the class has been as a hands-on course/workshop that runs from 8-ish in the morning until 2-ish in the afternoon for a week.  The focus is on exposure to all sorts of tools (mostly of the web 2.0 variety) with the goal of helping folks figure out how various things might (or not) work in their teaching.  It’s a lot of practice that hopefully sparks some theory.  I originally imagined it as an English/Writing course, but all but one of the eight students have come from other programs and they are all grad students, too.  It’s been a lot of fun and useful for students (I think), and the format has worked out pretty much the way that I hoped:  lots of time to really try to figure out some of this software, lots of time to talk and brainstorm about what might work, lots of time to “bond” with each other.  Anyway, check out the web site above.

As part of the deal, EMU puts faculty up in a local hotel, and in our case, we selected the option of the Great Wolf Lodge. Check out the web site for those not familiar; basically, it is a hotel with a waterpark, or a waterpark with a hotel.  As Annette put it, staying here is a bit like staying in a Chuck E. Cheese:  everything is set up for the 12 and under crowd (and parents, of course) for a one or two night stay (the desk clerk expressed surprise at my eight day reservation) of waterpark fun, story-time, ice cream, arcade games, some sort of weird Harry Potter-esque game in the hallways that involve kids playing with wands.  Don’t ask because that’s all I know.  Mind you, it’s a decent-enough hotel.  Everyone has been quite nice, and, relatively speaking, it is pretty conveniently located, especially to get to the points east of here that are of touristy interest.  But I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t on EMU’s dime.

While I’ve been teaching, Annette and Will have been touring about, taking advantage of the waterpark, and just generally hanging about.  When you’re up north this long, you don’t feel as much pressure to do something all the time.  So far, we’ve been up to Leeland (Fishtown and the Bluebird), Glen Arbor (and Cherry Republic), Sleeping Bear, Empire Beach, downtown Traverse City, and a few points in-between.  We’re thinking about going up to Petoskey on Saturday.  Whenever I come up here, I always have two reoccuring thoughts:  first, it sure is beautiful up here and I understand the appeal of a sorta run-down cabin down a gravel lane by the lake. Conversely, it reminds me of how it is a lot more fun to visit a tourist town than to live in a tourist town.  The traffic around here, especially in the “city” of Traverse City: jesh.

Anyway, some pictures/movies soon, including of the bird shit, birds, and buffalo.

Via the NCTE Inbox, I came across this Time magazine article, “Mourning the Death of Handwriting.” It’s pretty much the same discussion about handwriting that I’ve posted about in the past:  isn’t it a shame that handwriting is dying, though there is no compelling reason as to why this really that bad of a thing.

But there are two twists.  First, the article’s author, Claire Suddath, actually quotes pretty much the only “real” expert on handwriting I know, Tamara Thornton, who wrote a fantastic book called Handwriting in America:  A Cultural History. Thornton’s theory about the “death” of handwriting is more tied to the role of standardized testing than increased computer use.  “If something isn’t on a test,” she said, “it’s viewed as a luxury.”  She has a point.

Second, the article once again highlights the difficulty in trying to figure out just when exactly handwriting “died.” My parents were both born in the 1940s, and my mother writes with a sort of combination of cursive and print, while my father’s handwriting is print, and one that looks like it was heavily influenced by something like an engineering or drafting class he took.  My wife and I were both born in the 1960s; Annette’s handwriting is neat and cursive, and my handwriting is awful.  We and pretty much everyone else in our generation were formally taught handwriting, but it seems like I and everyone else I know prints.  The article’s author, Suddath, interviews her third grade teacher (Suddath said she was in the third grade in 1990) who taught her handwriting and who implies that Suddath’s was pretty much the last generation for whom cursive was a “rite of passage.”  My son, born in the late 1990s, has awful handwriting, but he was most definitely taught cursive and I do recall the third and fourth graders seeing writing in cursive as a “grown-up” thing to do.

Anyway, my point is it seems like handwriting has been waning and lost on the next generation for a long time now.  But once again, as someone who has never had the coordination (left-handedness, mostly), skill, or patience to write– even print!– neatly, I welcome the ever-returning end of handwriting.