As I look out over the fractured jigsaw puzzle that is the media landscape, I can't help but feel overwhelming curiosity about where it's all headed.
The nature of the distribution of information has changed so much in the past century, and the internet seems to have shaken everything to the core. After I left my TV job and consulted a public relations person about getting a job, she replied "Good work on leaving a dying industry!" Yikes. Well, I'm out of it now, so that didn't unnerve me all that much.
That comment is just one of many different things that always make me start thinking about the future. Where is all this going to end up? Can Hollywood and broadcast networks keep up their astronomical spending to try to keep people glued to their seats? Can newspapers survive the drop in revenues?
I honestly don't know, but I can speculate.
In my read of media history, I've found that no medium really stays on solid ground for all that long. Something new always comes along to fracture the marketplace. First you had newspapers and books, then radio came along and fractured the viewers. TV added in further fractures. Finally we hit cable and the internet age which have seemingly shattered the viewership into a million little pieces.
The newer guys to the game, cable and internet, are very well suited in their programming strategies to keep people tuned in. They're not going for the broadest group of people possible like the big networks (and yes, I am aware that many of these channels share parent companies with the big networks). Instead, they're looking for a sizable slice that will devotedly use their content. The cable channels have employed this with programming like "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", and "Archer". The internet is full of low cost entertainment sites that all cater to tiny niches. Perfect for the new age.
I especially wonder what will happen to journalism. After all, it takes money to run a paper or local TV station. I've seen some bright spots in the journalism world. We still have NPR, who haven't bent to sensationalism due to their non-profit nature. Their website is my go-to place for news. Then there's ProPublica, a non-profit internet publication dedicated to investigative reporting. I'm really hoping that site gets big. It's excellent.
But even with some decent examples of survival with some small audiences. It seems to me that our media landscape remains uncertain.
About Me
- Adam
- Hello, I'm Adam. I'm a communications professional looking for work in the public relations field. This is a blog of my random musings. Enjoy!
Friday, March 14, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
Cosmos: "Standing Up in the Milky Way" Review
In an earlier post, I talked about my excitement for the new Cosmos show. Now that I've seen it, I thought I'd write up a little review.
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey is a reboot of the 30 year old Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. The original series starred Carl Sagan, who wanted to take people on a voyage around the Cosmos, from the big things to the incredibly small. Along the way, Sagan would impart his viewpoints about the cosmos and also talk about historical scientific figures. The original Cosmos was so special because even today it stands out from most documentaries. It didn't just pass on the newest discoveries, it talked about the importance of scientific thought and the deep implications behind our discoveries.
The new 2014 reboot also follows a similar structure albeit with a new host. Sagan unfortunately died in the mid-90s so fellow astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson steps in as host. Tyson does a terrific job in his role, giving us an overview of the cosmos with a twinkle in his eye that says there's fun to be had.
The show speaks about a number of subjects in its 45 minute run. The first sequence tracks out from Earth to view the observable universe, giving us our cosmic address. The episode also talks about Giordano Bruno, a 16th century monk who believed the cosmos was endless and filled with other suns and planets like our own. The third major is the cosmic calendar. Anyone familiar with the original Cosmos will remember this one. Tyson compares the history of the universe with a normal calendar, with the beginning of the universe at January 1st and the current day at December 31st. We quickly find out that we only appear in the last minute of December 31st. Wow, that's not long at all.
This new Cosmos ends with a very poignant moment, as Tyson talks about the first time he met Carl Sagan.
The special effects and animated sequences were terrific. The shots of Jupiter's Great Red Spot in particular just blew me away.
I'm absolutely excited to see where this series goes in the next 12 episodes. I hope you all are too.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
House of Cards Review - To Play the King
House of Cards UK Review (Part 2 of 3): To Play the King
Hello everyone. Welcome to my review of the second UK House of Cards miniseries.
So, let me be upfront about my opinion of To Play the King: it's just not nearly as good or as fun as the original House of Cards series.
The show takes place a few years after the events of House of Cards, with Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) as prime minister of the UK. Urquhart's relatively easy reign is interrupted by a new, liberal king (Michael Kitchen). Francis at first misjudges the king as a dimwitted fool, before the king's speeches about poverty strike a chord with the voters. He also takes on a brilliant new political adviser, Sarah Harding (Kitty Aldridge). Her hiring causes resentment with Francis' previous close adviser, the chief whip Tim Stamper (Colin Jeavons).
There are also leftover scars from the events in the previous series. Francis is haunted by his memories of Mattie, especially the moment when he pushed her off a building to her death. We also see a mysterious figure has come into possession of Mattie's tape, which documents the fact that Francis murdered her.
So, why isn't it as fun? I think it partly has to do with the fact that Francis is already in power. In the previous season, there's a sense that we're continually pressing forward each episode toward Francis becoming prime minister. Here, he's only fighting to stay in power. In the previous series, he's fighting to move up. In this series he's fighting to stay in the same place. That's just not as interesting.
Another part of what made the previous series fun was the fact that we got to watch Francis methodically put together his schemes. Here, he just argues with the king for most of the time until the final episode. There's a plan to release scandalous information about the royals that is set up in episode 1, but that's it. There's nothing else Francis does. It's really pretty boring.
You might accuse me of just wanting this sequel series to steal stuff off the original. Maybe you'd have a point if this series already didn't do that with the affair story line between Urquhart and Sarah. I've already seen the exact same story line in the previous series. I should point out that element was the weakest part of the original.
There are still plenty of good things going on here. Ian Richardson is still excellent as Francis Urquhart, but the series is so focused on a million other story lines that he doesn't show up a whole lot.
In the end, To Play the King is a much more dull experience than House of Cards. It's really too bad because I love Richardson as Urquhart. Too bad he was handed sub par material.
Here's to hoping our final miniseries, The Final Cut, is much better.
Hello everyone. Welcome to my review of the second UK House of Cards miniseries.
So, let me be upfront about my opinion of To Play the King: it's just not nearly as good or as fun as the original House of Cards series.
The show takes place a few years after the events of House of Cards, with Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) as prime minister of the UK. Urquhart's relatively easy reign is interrupted by a new, liberal king (Michael Kitchen). Francis at first misjudges the king as a dimwitted fool, before the king's speeches about poverty strike a chord with the voters. He also takes on a brilliant new political adviser, Sarah Harding (Kitty Aldridge). Her hiring causes resentment with Francis' previous close adviser, the chief whip Tim Stamper (Colin Jeavons).
There are also leftover scars from the events in the previous series. Francis is haunted by his memories of Mattie, especially the moment when he pushed her off a building to her death. We also see a mysterious figure has come into possession of Mattie's tape, which documents the fact that Francis murdered her.
So, why isn't it as fun? I think it partly has to do with the fact that Francis is already in power. In the previous season, there's a sense that we're continually pressing forward each episode toward Francis becoming prime minister. Here, he's only fighting to stay in power. In the previous series, he's fighting to move up. In this series he's fighting to stay in the same place. That's just not as interesting.
Another part of what made the previous series fun was the fact that we got to watch Francis methodically put together his schemes. Here, he just argues with the king for most of the time until the final episode. There's a plan to release scandalous information about the royals that is set up in episode 1, but that's it. There's nothing else Francis does. It's really pretty boring.
You might accuse me of just wanting this sequel series to steal stuff off the original. Maybe you'd have a point if this series already didn't do that with the affair story line between Urquhart and Sarah. I've already seen the exact same story line in the previous series. I should point out that element was the weakest part of the original.
There are still plenty of good things going on here. Ian Richardson is still excellent as Francis Urquhart, but the series is so focused on a million other story lines that he doesn't show up a whole lot.
In the end, To Play the King is a much more dull experience than House of Cards. It's really too bad because I love Richardson as Urquhart. Too bad he was handed sub par material.
Here's to hoping our final miniseries, The Final Cut, is much better.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Going Full Nerd over NASA Projects
Ok, I have to admit something to you people. I can't hide it any more. I love space. I love learning about space so much.
My bookshelves are filled with multiple different books about astronomy, as is my Kindle. I constantly read science news articles and spy on what's happening with NASA, and I can't hold my excitement for the next two years.
Here in 2014, we're going to finally land something on a comet. The European Space Agency sent Rosetta, a comet orbiter with a little tiny probe that will drop down and latch on to the surface. Of course that's just the first of several exciting missions.
Then we have the Dawn spacecraft from NASA. This probe already gave us our first look at Vesta, and in early 2015 it will arrive at Ceres, making it the first probe to ever visit a dwarf planet. I should note that we recently discovered water vapor around Ceres, meaning that Dawn could be exploring a place with the potential for life.
Finally, shortly after that, we have New Horizons. This mission is going to Pluto. I think this is the mission I'm most excited about. My enthusiasm is probably rooted in the fact that Pluto was considered a planet when I was a kid. I remember knowing that Pluto was the only "planet" we didn't have any close up pictures of. The fact that we finally get to see this world excites me to no end. If all goes well in 2015, it will go from a dot in the night sky to a full fledged world in our imaginations.
All of these things are coming soon, and I personally am going to love reading about all the discoveries we make on these newly explored worlds.
My bookshelves are filled with multiple different books about astronomy, as is my Kindle. I constantly read science news articles and spy on what's happening with NASA, and I can't hold my excitement for the next two years.
Here in 2014, we're going to finally land something on a comet. The European Space Agency sent Rosetta, a comet orbiter with a little tiny probe that will drop down and latch on to the surface. Of course that's just the first of several exciting missions.
Then we have the Dawn spacecraft from NASA. This probe already gave us our first look at Vesta, and in early 2015 it will arrive at Ceres, making it the first probe to ever visit a dwarf planet. I should note that we recently discovered water vapor around Ceres, meaning that Dawn could be exploring a place with the potential for life.
Finally, shortly after that, we have New Horizons. This mission is going to Pluto. I think this is the mission I'm most excited about. My enthusiasm is probably rooted in the fact that Pluto was considered a planet when I was a kid. I remember knowing that Pluto was the only "planet" we didn't have any close up pictures of. The fact that we finally get to see this world excites me to no end. If all goes well in 2015, it will go from a dot in the night sky to a full fledged world in our imaginations.
All of these things are coming soon, and I personally am going to love reading about all the discoveries we make on these newly explored worlds.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Cosmos is coming and I couldn't be more excited
I was too young to catch the original series when I was younger, but I did eventually catch it on Netflix. I was amazed at how different it was from other science documentaries. It wasn't just a bunch of recent science facts, it was a philosophy of looking at the universe.
The fact that we're getting a new version of that with shiny new visuals just makes me excited, not just for myself, but for millions of kids and adults who hopefully will be seeing these things for the first time.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the perfect person to host. Just about everyone I've seen agrees that he is our generation's Carl Sagan.
I really hope this series becomes a big thing. The series premieres on March 9th on Fox TV.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Easy Reads: Sherlock Holmes
Here is yet another type of feature I plan to do on this blog. It's called Easy Reads.
Basically, I'm going to look at older books and talk about how well they hold up and whether a modern reader could understand them. Believe me, there are some older works that are incredibly hard to comprehend. I remember having to read "The Adventures of Roderick Random" for a class once. Boy... I'll just say it was rough.
So for this first installment of Easy Reads, I've decided to talk about Sherlock Holmes. Specifically, I want to talk about Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, and not those written by other authors.
Unlike Roderick Random, these stories are incredibly easy to understand and also incredibly fun to read.
I feel like everyone knows what Sherlock Holmes is about, but I'll just give a quick summary here anyway. The series follows Sherlock Holmes, a brilliant private investigator in 1890s London who uses scientific techniques and deductive reasoning to solve cases. Tagging along to record Holmes' adventures is his friend, Dr. John Watson.
Conan Doyle's run of Sherlock Holmes stories is comprised of four full novels and four collections of short stories. Each and every mystery is an incredibly fun read. Holmes and Watson take on cases ranging from murder most foul to strange happenings to conspiracies involving the KKK.
Holmes is just a great character, managing to be brilliant, arrogant, and ostentatious at the same time. Just like all stories in the mystery genre, it's always fun to try to put together the pieces of each mystery before Holmes explains the whole thing.
Highlights include stories "The Speckled Band", "Hound of the Baskervilles", and "The Sign of Four".
There aren't many flaws I can find with Conan Doyle's stories, but there are a few complaints I should note. One of them is that Watson seems a little too in awe of Holmes in all of the books. It's understandable in the first few stories, but the idolization keeps going book after book. However, that's a relatively minor complaint.
The other flaw I need to note is some of the casual racism that could be expected of a book written in the 1890s. There's nothing I would call absolutely egregious, but when Conan Doyle brings in some of his characters from more exotic locations, there's a definite vein of racism there. However, these characters are few and far between, and often are a very small part of the stories they appear in.
Overall, Sherlock Holmes would be a worthy addition to your collection, especially if you like mystery stories. You can bag the entire Conan Doyle library of Holmes stories on Kindle for only 99 cents. It's a heck of a bargain.
Basically, I'm going to look at older books and talk about how well they hold up and whether a modern reader could understand them. Believe me, there are some older works that are incredibly hard to comprehend. I remember having to read "The Adventures of Roderick Random" for a class once. Boy... I'll just say it was rough.
So for this first installment of Easy Reads, I've decided to talk about Sherlock Holmes. Specifically, I want to talk about Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, and not those written by other authors.
Unlike Roderick Random, these stories are incredibly easy to understand and also incredibly fun to read.
I feel like everyone knows what Sherlock Holmes is about, but I'll just give a quick summary here anyway. The series follows Sherlock Holmes, a brilliant private investigator in 1890s London who uses scientific techniques and deductive reasoning to solve cases. Tagging along to record Holmes' adventures is his friend, Dr. John Watson.
Conan Doyle's run of Sherlock Holmes stories is comprised of four full novels and four collections of short stories. Each and every mystery is an incredibly fun read. Holmes and Watson take on cases ranging from murder most foul to strange happenings to conspiracies involving the KKK.
Holmes is just a great character, managing to be brilliant, arrogant, and ostentatious at the same time. Just like all stories in the mystery genre, it's always fun to try to put together the pieces of each mystery before Holmes explains the whole thing.
Highlights include stories "The Speckled Band", "Hound of the Baskervilles", and "The Sign of Four".
There aren't many flaws I can find with Conan Doyle's stories, but there are a few complaints I should note. One of them is that Watson seems a little too in awe of Holmes in all of the books. It's understandable in the first few stories, but the idolization keeps going book after book. However, that's a relatively minor complaint.
The other flaw I need to note is some of the casual racism that could be expected of a book written in the 1890s. There's nothing I would call absolutely egregious, but when Conan Doyle brings in some of his characters from more exotic locations, there's a definite vein of racism there. However, these characters are few and far between, and often are a very small part of the stories they appear in.
Overall, Sherlock Holmes would be a worthy addition to your collection, especially if you like mystery stories. You can bag the entire Conan Doyle library of Holmes stories on Kindle for only 99 cents. It's a heck of a bargain.
Friday, February 28, 2014
How Should We Deal with Failure?
A little while ago, I heard popular Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about failure on his radio show. Tyson cited NASA as a great example of how to treat failures: as pathways to future success.
Really, I couldn't agree with him more.
Failure is a natural part of life. It's how we learn. Often it's how we learn never to do a certain thing again (hot stove tops anyone?)
I should note that certain failures will rule the rest of your life. Specifically, if you murder someone. However, I think most people are smart enough to avoid making those decisions. I hope.
But it seems like we teach children to fear any type of failure deeply. If you fail at this certain thing, you fail at life. Forever. I have to say that this is hardly realistic. If you look at some of the most revered figures in recent years, you can find failure.
Steve Jobs is a good example of how failure can't stop an individual. Sure, Jobs formed Apple and helped popularize the first computer. He was also ousted out of the company due to his tyrannical leadership style and instability. Jobs then moved on to create a new computer company called NeXT. That didn't pan out either. However, all of those failures didn't keep Jobs down. Pixar became a massive success. After that, Jobs retook control of Apple and amplified the company's previous successes.
More often, we seem to teach people that they should defer their failure on to someone else. Now, rather than addressing any problems, we're simply avoiding them. Blaming someone else is an easy way out.
In the end, we should treat failure the way NASA does: that it's something to be avoided, but something to learn from if it happens.
--------------------------------
Note: I'm still working on getting through the second House of Cards mini-series. Expect the review within a week or so.
Really, I couldn't agree with him more.
Failure is a natural part of life. It's how we learn. Often it's how we learn never to do a certain thing again (hot stove tops anyone?)
I should note that certain failures will rule the rest of your life. Specifically, if you murder someone. However, I think most people are smart enough to avoid making those decisions. I hope.
But it seems like we teach children to fear any type of failure deeply. If you fail at this certain thing, you fail at life. Forever. I have to say that this is hardly realistic. If you look at some of the most revered figures in recent years, you can find failure.
Steve Jobs is a good example of how failure can't stop an individual. Sure, Jobs formed Apple and helped popularize the first computer. He was also ousted out of the company due to his tyrannical leadership style and instability. Jobs then moved on to create a new computer company called NeXT. That didn't pan out either. However, all of those failures didn't keep Jobs down. Pixar became a massive success. After that, Jobs retook control of Apple and amplified the company's previous successes.
More often, we seem to teach people that they should defer their failure on to someone else. Now, rather than addressing any problems, we're simply avoiding them. Blaming someone else is an easy way out.
In the end, we should treat failure the way NASA does: that it's something to be avoided, but something to learn from if it happens.
--------------------------------
Note: I'm still working on getting through the second House of Cards mini-series. Expect the review within a week or so.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
House of Cards Review - House of Cards UK
Hello everyone. Here we are at the first of many random things I plan to talk about on this blog.
It's House of Cards... the UK version. Didn't know there was a UK version? Well, now you do.
So here's how these reviews are going to work: I'm going to run through all the UK House of Cards seasons, reviewing each season as I go. Then, I'll hop over to the US version and review each season of that. I want to see how the two series stack up against each other.
With that out of the way, let's get started.
House of Cards UK Review (Part 1 of 3): House of Cards
The UK version of House of Cards is technically not a traditional TV show, it's actually three mini-series that tell one big story. Each series is only four episodes long. The first is called "House of Cards", the second is "To Play the King", and the third is "The Final Cut".
So, how is the first mini-series? I'll just cut to chase and say it rocks.
The story centers on Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson), a fictional Chief Whip of the Conservative Party in the year 1990. The first episode begins on election night, where we see the Conservative Party has won once again. Urquhart expects to be rewarded by Henry Collingridge (David Lyon), the new prime minister, for his loyalty with a cabinet position, but is given nothing. Collingridge doesn't even want to use any of Francis's ideas for sprucing up the cabinet. Enraged, Francis hatches a plan to bring down Collingridge and take the prime minister position for himself.
Of course Francis can't do it alone. He enlists the help of Roger O'Neill (Miles Anderson), the party's cocaine-addicted public relations consultant; and Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker), a young journalist who does not realize what Urquhart is capable of.
At first glance this seems like your average mediocre TV political drama. However, House of Cards proves that the originality of a story doesn't always determine its quality, the details are important too. In a very Shakespearean touch, Urquhart frequently breaks the fourth wall to talk to the audience. He always does it with a smile. He dispenses snide remarks and deep musings on the nature of the world and politics.
Ian Richardson is fantastic as Urquhart. His deep, rich voice betrays a bottomless amusement with his opponents, even as he presents an icy image to the rest of the world. Richardson takes what could have been a staid political drama and gives it a sharp bite. I was hooked within a few minutes. I haven't seen the US version yet, but I will say that Kevin Spacey has a lot to live up to.
The rest of the cast is pretty terrific too. Susannah Harker plays Mattie with the heart of a press evangelist and a head full of ambition. She manages to keep the character from devolving into an irritating whiner like many similar journalist characters often do. We've seen the annoying "obsessed with the truth" journalist trope millions of times. Miles Anderson as O'Neill also does really well here. I particularly want to highlight his work in the fourth episode of the season. I won't say much more to avoid spoilers, but he's great.
While I've bestowed nothing but praise onto House of Cards so far, I do think there are some major weaknesses. The relationship between Mattie and Urquhart is a particular weak point. Mattie goes from simply relying on him as a source to loving him within four episodes. While that covers a significant amount of time in the narrative, the falling in love subplot doesn't really match up to her character. She is strong-willed and intelligent and it seems like she would realize that an affair with a married man would lead to nowhere. People might have other interpretations, but I didn't buy this plot development.
The other major weakness comes in the fourth episode. I won't say exactly what it is. I will say that most of the things in episodes one through three seem like they could actually happen. Episode four tested my suspension of disbelief. When you get to that part in the series, you'll know what I mean.
Other than those things, House of Cards is excellent entertainment. Ian Richardson is worth the price of the DVD alone. I wholeheartedly recommend it. I can't wait to check out the next miniseries.
It's House of Cards... the UK version. Didn't know there was a UK version? Well, now you do.
So here's how these reviews are going to work: I'm going to run through all the UK House of Cards seasons, reviewing each season as I go. Then, I'll hop over to the US version and review each season of that. I want to see how the two series stack up against each other.
With that out of the way, let's get started.
House of Cards UK Review (Part 1 of 3): House of Cards
The UK version of House of Cards is technically not a traditional TV show, it's actually three mini-series that tell one big story. Each series is only four episodes long. The first is called "House of Cards", the second is "To Play the King", and the third is "The Final Cut".So, how is the first mini-series? I'll just cut to chase and say it rocks.
The story centers on Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson), a fictional Chief Whip of the Conservative Party in the year 1990. The first episode begins on election night, where we see the Conservative Party has won once again. Urquhart expects to be rewarded by Henry Collingridge (David Lyon), the new prime minister, for his loyalty with a cabinet position, but is given nothing. Collingridge doesn't even want to use any of Francis's ideas for sprucing up the cabinet. Enraged, Francis hatches a plan to bring down Collingridge and take the prime minister position for himself.
Of course Francis can't do it alone. He enlists the help of Roger O'Neill (Miles Anderson), the party's cocaine-addicted public relations consultant; and Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker), a young journalist who does not realize what Urquhart is capable of.
At first glance this seems like your average mediocre TV political drama. However, House of Cards proves that the originality of a story doesn't always determine its quality, the details are important too. In a very Shakespearean touch, Urquhart frequently breaks the fourth wall to talk to the audience. He always does it with a smile. He dispenses snide remarks and deep musings on the nature of the world and politics.
Ian Richardson is fantastic as Urquhart. His deep, rich voice betrays a bottomless amusement with his opponents, even as he presents an icy image to the rest of the world. Richardson takes what could have been a staid political drama and gives it a sharp bite. I was hooked within a few minutes. I haven't seen the US version yet, but I will say that Kevin Spacey has a lot to live up to.The rest of the cast is pretty terrific too. Susannah Harker plays Mattie with the heart of a press evangelist and a head full of ambition. She manages to keep the character from devolving into an irritating whiner like many similar journalist characters often do. We've seen the annoying "obsessed with the truth" journalist trope millions of times. Miles Anderson as O'Neill also does really well here. I particularly want to highlight his work in the fourth episode of the season. I won't say much more to avoid spoilers, but he's great.
While I've bestowed nothing but praise onto House of Cards so far, I do think there are some major weaknesses. The relationship between Mattie and Urquhart is a particular weak point. Mattie goes from simply relying on him as a source to loving him within four episodes. While that covers a significant amount of time in the narrative, the falling in love subplot doesn't really match up to her character. She is strong-willed and intelligent and it seems like she would realize that an affair with a married man would lead to nowhere. People might have other interpretations, but I didn't buy this plot development.
The other major weakness comes in the fourth episode. I won't say exactly what it is. I will say that most of the things in episodes one through three seem like they could actually happen. Episode four tested my suspension of disbelief. When you get to that part in the series, you'll know what I mean.
Other than those things, House of Cards is excellent entertainment. Ian Richardson is worth the price of the DVD alone. I wholeheartedly recommend it. I can't wait to check out the next miniseries.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
A hearty welcome to everyone reading this historic first post on my blog.
So what's this blog about? Why have I started it and what do I intend to accomplish with it?
I'm always interested in how people structure stories, how people build the reality of their world, and most importantly, how they can fail at those things.
I think this might be the only time the words "historic" and "blog" have ever been used in the same sentence. Well... unless someone has a blog about old buildings or something.
My name is Adam Beck. I am a 25-year-old communications professional currently looking for a job in the Pacific Northwest. I attended Washington State University (go Cougs!) and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Communications.
So what's this blog about? Why have I started it and what do I intend to accomplish with it?
The answer is that I want to give my readers (all none of them) a look into my daily thoughts and interests.
Those interests are like a big, unpruned tree, with different branches shooting off in random directions.
I love movies, television shows, and books. I have an eclectic music collection. I'm fascinated by science, especially astronomy and biology. I also like to ski and play tennis.
For the sake of my audience's sanity, I've decided to focus this blog down to mostly talk about movies, television, and books. After all, I love the art of storytelling. I ended up picking communications as a career because of this infatuation.
I'm always interested in how people structure stories, how people build the reality of their world, and most importantly, how they can fail at those things.
Analyzing the failures (or the things you don't like), can help you grow as a storyteller. Better yet, you can put those lessons to work in a different field.
I should also note that not all my posts will likely be about storytelling. I might decide to write down some of my random thoughts. Mostly though, this blog will be about stories.
So, with my mission statement explained and my blog ready to go, let's get started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)