This is a page. It may contain words.

Really quick, these are three things that I tend to evaluate when I’m looking at something.

1.I use New Criticism first and foremost. If it isn’t in the text, it’s pretty easy to say that it isn’t there. I do understand that texts don’t exist independent of their authors, which is why using only one critical lens is a terrible idea. I also know that this one isn’t heavily in favor right now, but it is certainly the easiest one to work with in the new media medium (where author doesn’t always exist in an accessible way). Does anyone know who created

??

No?

But you can still read it as a text, right?

That’s my point.

I have the one-sentence grafs.

2. Do I find it funny? Referential jokes, internal continuity, etc: these are things that I absolutely look for in my readings. If I don’t find the joke funny, do I believe that it is funny within the parameters that were set for the joke? If so, awesome. My definition of funny certainly lacks a certain cohesion found in even the non-stickiest of glue, but I try to keep an open mind. For example, there was a long time where beautifully done older movies and pitch-perfectly acted zany comedies failed to tickle any of my fancies. But now I can laugh out loud at them with unabashed and well-supported understanding of the form. And Penny Arcade may not always make sense, but at least it makes me laugh really, really hard.

(of course, there are times when something isn’t funny and I know the author played heavily into the creation of the text, so…)

3. I fail at life and being cool because I occasionally utilize this way of examining things if I’m not enjoying them. Of course, this is petty and many times I need to read the built in fallacy as-if the author intended it. However, with the plethora of internet videos and blog posts that are often unawares of what they’ve shamefully created in their own sin of misunderstanding, I have been forced to bust it back out as a beat stick. I’m shamefully addicted to Fire Joe Morgan and anything South Park throws up as social commentary.

And, since 95% (a correctly researched number) of *all* blogs (creative and non-creative writing) are crap, I have been forced to bust out the 3rd lens on more than a few occasions.

For people reading this: I would have done a better job of “blogging” (per se) by splitting this into 3 separate posts. Why? Because most blog authors that are trying to create page hits and for each post you generally get additional hits as people flock back to your page.

Just a heads up.

-AJmC is here to scream
–He screams, she screams
—Everybody screams for da lumber beams
—-What up, word, I’m out.