summerbronze

Am I the only one to notice that the same book was listed as both number 6 and 33? (Sound and the Fury - Billy Faulkner) Nevermind, I'm an idiot...I didn't realize there were two lists. Shun me now.

I'm jealous of the fact that you saw Matt do a "little twirl" on stage. It would have amused me. Alas, I've never been witness to such an event. The only thing better would have been to see him do his little twirl, followed by a pliet (I have no idea how to spell that), after prancing across the stage, leaping intermittently. k, I'm done now.

This coming from someone I recall as having posted "I make poop" recently....and the loser is...?

Awesome. Well the imagery I wouldn't describe as awesome, but your contribution is. Note to self: reread manifestos... Edit: not that matt's use of imagery is not good, but it's not a particularly pleasant image. So it's good imagery, that is not uplifting.

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed elsewhere... but the circus theme spanning albums has always been one of the aspects of his lyrics that makes me most curious. I have thought if I could ask him one question, that would probably be it (if I was assured that I'd get a genuine answer). (The question being: "what's up with the circus theme?") A few of the circus references: Carmelina: "i will picture us clowns" My life as a circus clown : title (obviously, and throughout) Running for home: "after this there's just the circus and every morning your carnie heart stops working" I'm sure there's more...

Thanks paranoid (not to be confused with pearanoid I guess). You actually reading what I wrote makes the writing of it worthwhile. You've proven it's not a dead thread after all. By no means do I advocate a single interpretation of a song though, so I'd love to hear others.

I think this is a really interesting thread. In the hopes of inducing this thread to continue: The following is a combination of my personal interpretation of, and what Matt supposedly said about "while we were hunting rabbits". I've read that the song is about Matt's image. For years ("these years of cloak and dagger") he'd been portrayed in the media as an asshole. Yes, some things he said and did contributed to this image, but the media took it and ran with it, edited everything so that his personable, "nice-guy" attributes were absent in his public image. And it worked. He became famous, and made a lot of money. Then when Matt's interests matured and changed, he became tired of putting on a front ("And I dance and I sing And I'm a monkey in a long line", "until now I was a soldier until now I dealt in fear") just to play into his public persona. He realized that when he acted mature, nice to reporters and fans, concerned about world events etc., the media and record company discouraged this as his "fuck-you-all" attitude sold more records. ("They've brought someone in to shut you up", as referring to the record company, his bandmates, promoters, media trying to convince him to act a certain way) This realization inspired the song, and made him feel like "a ship lost at sea". Who he felt he really was, did not match the Matt Good persona. he had previously "dealt in fear" : antagonized the media, fans. What inspired the song was a realization that all he was, and all everyone is to some extent, are "all monkey's in a long line" and "we dance and we sing" according to how others expect us to behave.

Is that a question for me? If so, explain, as I don't understand.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Does this mean all subject areas that do not have definitive, clear, provable, answers should be abondoned? For example, literature. Is all scholarship on literature pointless, just because different people experience what they read differently? In the interests of full disclosure, I am an english major. I whole-heartedly believe discussion of all forms of art is invaluable. While there is never one right answer, how "right" you are depends on how well you support your idea. So if someone were to say they think the song is about figure skating, while they are entitled to interpret it this way if they want, it would be an unsupported and therefore weak argument.

Uhhh...yeh, I don't get it. At first you say he owes nothing. And then you say he is obligated to continue sharing his opinions? Which one is it? I definitely take issue with the idea that he is, for some reason, morally obligated to continue his blog. And that last sentence...I totally agree. In fact I said as much, when I suggested that it was 100% his decision how long he wanted to maintain a blog.

Yasa, What you just said is pretty close to what 'thefutureisxrated' said in another thread, so instead of typing it all out again, I'll quote my reply to him: "It sounds a bit to me like you think Matt owes his fans something and has short-changed them/us by discontinuing his blog. Your comments have a decided "how-dare-he" ring to them, only thinly veiled with the "what-did-he-expect?" argument. Whether or not he was fully prepared for the reaction, he had no obligation to continue the blog. How the blog was structured, and for how long it should last, were matters entirely for Matt to decide. What he gave his fans was a gift, and what you say sounds ungracious and greedy." I would really like to know how you justify the premise that he owes anything to anyone.

The sole purpose for being here is the opportunity to correspond with people who have opinions different from my own. I don't know how you interpreted what I said as a condemnation of opinions other than my own.

Judgemental comments are made in the hopes that someone, particularly the person to whom they're directed, will respond. Actually, come to think of it, any post whether it's constructive or nonsense is written in the hopes that someone will read it and respond in some way. I wouldn't be writing this right now if I wasn't hoping someone would read what I'm writing and then offer their insight on the topic. For someone who can think of nothing better to do than write insulting comments, the ultimate reward is recognition by the person to whom they directed their insult. We witnessed this time and again on the mblog, and now with the interaction here between Scot and Jenn. Acknowledging the offensive person by name, and resonding, is the best way of ensuring this behavior will occur again. When Matt responded to undesirable behavior by withdrawing the comments feature, he inadvertantly rewarded the behavior, as the goal in the first place was to get a response. For those who own dog(s), we know the best way to discourage a particular behavior is to ignore it. I'm not comparing anyone to a dog here, but the same principles can and do apply to human behavior. If someone writes: "so-and-so is *insert offensive adjective here*", and everyone ignores the comment entirely, I think the jeuvenile antics could be forced into extinction.

Your cunningly crafted sarcasm simply confirms (alliteration is fun) that you believe a particular age group is solely responsible. That because those who frequented the mblog probably were 18-24, problems were inevitable. I don't think it's a function of age at all. I think the problems were more likely a result of the accessability (comments, email etc.) that was unfortunately one of the reasons why the site was particularly charming (which you convincingly argued, and I do agree with). If you'll excuse the cliche, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For those curious about the origins of this poll, refer to the thread "matt's political views" in which "thefutureisxrated" wrote: "You have to expect the idiots when your site is visited by 18-24 year olds (I'll post a poll on the "bored" to see the average age demographic of people who visited MBlog). I sincerely hope you read the goings-on in that particular thread so as to better understand the motives behind this poll. I am personally not participating in this poll because of the intentions behind starting it. I think suggesting that the people who were causing problems necessarily fit into a particular age demographic is ludicrous. And even if the majority of the obnoxious people who disabused the site were 18-24, or even if the majority of the readers of the mblog overall were within this age range (which is impossible to determine through this poll incidentally), we cannot suggest that the problems were BECAUSE OF the mean age of readers of the blog. While the poll MAY be interesting for someone without ulterior motives, using it as some type of proof that all of the problems were due to the relatively young age of readers of the mblog is unacceptable. Age descrimination at its' finest, people.

Really? I stand corrected then. I thought it had long ago gone out of circulation. Thanks for the info.

"at a recent mg concert, i was surprised how many hardcore mg fans haven't read the book.." I think it's an issue of availability. I don't know if I'd fit your definition of hardcore, but I remember when I first heard about the book, I was determined to get it. When it was supposedly released, I tried every bookstore, every music store, and no one knew what I was talking about. At the time I didn't have a credit card so couldn't buy it online. I'm sure there was probably some way I could have gotten it, but I wasn't ambitious enough. I have read most of the manifestos, and while I'd love a copy of the book, I realize it would be quite pricy if I did manage to find a copy on Ebay. I don't know if I'd pay upwards of $100 for a book I've read most of already. And if this fact somehow makes me less of a "hardcore" fan, then so be it.

I did not intend to be picky about the grammatical errors. I find grammatical errors distract me from the content, and found it irresistable to comment about the reference to working for a university paper. I think if I had a nifty computer that typed everything for me, I would proof-read to correct errors. I'm sure now I've mentioned this, you'll be sifting through every comment I make in order to find a grammatical mistake and throw it back in my face. That's what I would do if I were you. Besides, what have I left to comment about, since YOUR mind is so firmly made up. I wouldn't want to become "blue in the face"... What I will say is that it sounds a bit to me like you think Matt owes his fans something and has short-changed them/us by discontinuing his blog. Your comments have a decided "how-dare-he" ring to them, only thinly veiled with the "what-did-he-expect?" argument. Whether or not he was fully prepared for the reaction, he had no obligation to continue the blog. How the blog was structured, and for how long it should last, were matters entirely for Matt to decide. What he gave his fans was a gift, and what you say sounds ungracious and greedy.

First, "your" is very different from "you're". And you say you wrote for a university publication? Second, of course Matt expected "scrutiny". What I'm arguing, is just because you expect something to happen does not necessarily prepare you fully. Some things inherently cannot be prepared for. Like the death of a loved one for example. Sure, it is expected. Someone you love will die. We all know this. Just because you expect it does not mean you aren't going to react to it in ways you may not anticipate.

I question your certainty regarding your reaction if you were in Matt's shoes. You say he should have expected "it". You say you would have been prepared for "it". And you seem to define "it" as simply scrutiny. However, I don't think you (or anyone) has any real idea of the extent of the negativity Matt faced. And I think death threats and whatnot are not scrutiny at all but a whole different kind of behavior. Moreover, having someone stalk you, or send death threats, is something you need to experience in order to know how you would react to it. Even if you "expect it", that does mean that you know how you'd react to it if it actually happened. It's like if you've ever been diagnosed with a serious or terminal illness. Everyone has thought about it, and most of us think we'd be upset, and then ultimately accept it and adjust to it. However I would also suggest that most of us have no idea of the emotional reaction we'd have because I think you'd have to have gone through it to really know.

Maverick; It's interesting how people can basically agree with each other and still manage to continue a debate. I think where I stand as opposed to where you stand on the issue is quite clear. Let me just point out that what Matt offered in his blog was an "educated, and well-rounded opinion on the news" precisely because he did consult so many sources (and I'm simply agreeing with you here). You took this quote of mine out of context, as I was originally referring to someone who relied on a single source, pretty much the opposite of what Matt did. Great discussion overall, I enjoyed it, and look forward to reading what you think on a variety of other issues in the future though. Thanks.

Maverick; I'd like to preface by emphasizing the fact that I'm not even REALLY talking about the mblog anymore. What I say pertains to any credible, informative, and accurate source of news, whether it be a blog, website, tv program, newspaper article, etc. First, my question about an ideal news source was meant to point to the cotradiction expressed in the two different types of sources you identified. Any news source has bias. "Matt's opinion" is a source of bias, (as any author's would be) but you criticize other news sources as being biased. So you're using a quality as a compliment to Matt but a criticism of other news sources. It is inescapable. It's not anyone's FAULT, and is no reflection on the quality of the news source. And more importantly, saying because you chose to agree with what Matt wrote, does not mean he was RIGHT because in such matters there is no right or wrong. There only exists evidence to support and refute various positions, and all you can do is evaluate the evidence (more of the obvious...) And just because you agree with the opinions expressed in a single news source does not mean you should relie on that news source exclusively. Your ideologies, culture, and personal opinions with respect to the topic at hand create bias. At the same time, the ideologies and opinions are crucial to any good editorial or reaction piece, whether you agree with those opinions or not. Simply put, all news sources contain bias, which can be a virtue, but only if the source is not the only one consulted. Yes, bias certainly can be a point of criticism with respect to the major news networks like CNN. And yes, if you were relying on mblog as your exclusive news source, I would suggest the bias present would have affected your understanding of the events being discussed, just as much as if you relied solely on CNN. I don't think having relied upon mblog, and the links presented, was a responsible or effective way of obtaining information. Matt consulted a huge variety of sources. But the process of selection of which sources to quote and link to introduces bias as well. Consulting exclusively the mblog, and the chosen links to outside sources, was simply not enough to form an educated, and well-rounded opinion on the news. This is by no means a criticism of the mblog in any way and should not be taken as such. I'm simply pointing out the invevitable even for the "best" of news sources.

Maverick; I think there are a few adjectives in my original comment that differentiate what I was actually trying to express from what you think I was trying to express. An example of one of the adjectives you perhaps did not consider fully is 'exclusive.' Of course the information contained in, and linked to, in Matt's posts were sources of news. Absolutely. I'm not contesting that. What I'm objecting to is the use of the blog, ANY blog for that matter, as an EXCLUSIVE news source. I'm doing so precisely because of the interesting, often enlightening spin you identified as one of the things attracting you to the blog. There's also a bit of ambiguity in your post. First, you commend Matt for the "added opinion and flavour" in the blog. Then, you condemn "watered-down, biased news editions." What kind of news source do you consider ideal? Matt's blog was biased. And that's not a criticism whatsoever. It simply means that what he wrote about, and the way he wrote about it, was affected by his personal opinions and ideologies. This bias exists to various degrees in all news sources, or sources of information in general. Because of this, obtaining a variety of sources on a particular issue is vital (why do I feel like I'm stating the obvious?). One great source was the mblog. As evidence to support my theory that Matt would encourage diversified sources, is the fact that many of the sources he consulted and quoted and/or linked to were from different places. Wouldn't it have been odd if every post contained quotes from the same source?

Personal reflections on the ex-Mblog and the ending of said blog: I think condemnation of those who "ruined it for the rest of us" is demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the ambition was behind the creation of the mblog. And yes, no one can ever REALLY know what motivated someone to do something, and what the intentions were, philosophically speaking. It seems that Matt was hoping for anyone interested in his music to become more aware of, educated, and evaluative of current events, particularly those related to political science. The 'ideal' mblog consumer would have been motivated and inspired by the posts to pursue knowledge of these events. They would not have relied exculsively on the mblog to provide them with the "news" (I did not interpret the posts as ever pretending to be a comprehensive source of information about current events). Moreover, for those who did pursue obtaining a hightened level of awareness of ongoing political issues (both those discussed in the mblog and those that didn't make the cut), the ending of the blog, while sad, should have no effect on awareness. We may not know Matt's opinion now, but his 'ideal' reader will still seek out the information he formerly provided. To those who won't be sifting through sources and pursuing knowledge of what's happening in this world: Matt (probably) never did desire your readership anyway I viewed it as a supplement to a more comprehensive awareness, but it's discouraging to realize so many were relying on it as an exclusive news source. That realization alone would have been enough for me to discontinue the blog.