I will be holding a creativity contest from 12/9-12/30 and giving out a $25 Target gift card to the 1st place winner of each week.
Here’s how it’s going to go:
First I will present you with a person, place and thing. Next it’s your job to create a piece of Individual Expression that is no more than 350 words and incorporates each of the given terms at least once. The structure, form, and medium (written or photo) of each entry is up to the creator.
The winner will be chosen by me, Bermuda, and the winning passage will be posted on my blog. Entries will be judged on their creativity, imagery, and their ability to incorporate all of the terms into a seamless, provocative passage.
All entries are due by the start of the next week's challenge.
Passages can be submitted by posting them in the comment section at the conclusion of that particular week’s blog or by emailing them to me. For entries that are emailed, please put your name and title of entry in the subject line. For entries posted as a comment, please leave an email address where you can be contacted at.
Please include a word count at the beginning of passages.
Limit two entries per creator per week.
Photo entries will be accepted as long as all given terms are represented and readily discernable by a reasonable person.
The winner will be awarded a $25 dollar gift card to Target.
.
This contest is open to all people, except for those of you on the masthead
If you have any questions please email me at Bermuda.editor at gmail.com
Here are your given terms for this week:
Person: Jesus
Place: Occupy Encampment
Thing: Flashlight (broken)
Undoubtedly Yours,
Bermuda
Showing posts with label Underground Individual Expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Underground Individual Expression. Show all posts
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Letter To The Leaves: Our Collective Soul
My Fellow Contributors,
This morning I want to depart from where my colleagues have taken their own blogs and take you down the untrodden path to my inner-spirit. And in doing so hope to expose you, my fellow contributors, to the beliefs on which this magazine was founded.
As Director of Public Relations it is my job to up hold the character and promote the brand of A Few Lines magazine. But in order for you understand the character of this magazine, I must first give you some personal narration on one of its creators.
I was diagnosed at the age of two with an auto-immune disorder called Alopecia Areata. The direct effect of this disorder is complete hair loss. So as many you have noticed, from the coffee shop readings or the booth we just recently had at Cal Poly Pomona, I do not have any hair anywhere on my body.
(I bring this piece of information up only so you can better understand the soul of this magazine)
I went through periods of my life where I felt ashamed, cast out, banished to the undergrounds of society. I soon turned away from the external world and moved inward. It was in this place of self-exploration where I developed my voice. The internal dialogue rambling in my head, describing things in its own neo-transcendental style. I went on like this till college; till I became an English major.
The written word became a way for me to transfer my thoughts into the here and now. I was able in just a few lines to capture images of fancy and thoughts of wildness, going on in my soul, down on paper. The illumination of this underground individual expression occuring in my soul was powerful. I wanted everyone to experience this feeling of true-self ejaculation. I wanted to bring people together under the common ground of self-expression and give you a place to share your thoughts on our ever converging world.
We are not elitists, but we do hold ourselves and the submissions we receive to a higher standard. Not because we want to be better than others, but because we believe truly great art comes from a desire to express which is most true to your self.
We look for the boldly unique, the pieces that speak more of the author's heart and mind than of the books he has read.
By Underground, We mean those who wish not for fame, but for the meager gain of personal satisfaction. Not for gold trophies, but to say, 'I was here'.
And with that, I leave you with this last thought,
If everything is nothing, then why not make this everything.
Undoubtedly Yours,
Bermuda
This morning I want to depart from where my colleagues have taken their own blogs and take you down the untrodden path to my inner-spirit. And in doing so hope to expose you, my fellow contributors, to the beliefs on which this magazine was founded.
As Director of Public Relations it is my job to up hold the character and promote the brand of A Few Lines magazine. But in order for you understand the character of this magazine, I must first give you some personal narration on one of its creators.
I was diagnosed at the age of two with an auto-immune disorder called Alopecia Areata. The direct effect of this disorder is complete hair loss. So as many you have noticed, from the coffee shop readings or the booth we just recently had at Cal Poly Pomona, I do not have any hair anywhere on my body.
(I bring this piece of information up only so you can better understand the soul of this magazine)
I went through periods of my life where I felt ashamed, cast out, banished to the undergrounds of society. I soon turned away from the external world and moved inward. It was in this place of self-exploration where I developed my voice. The internal dialogue rambling in my head, describing things in its own neo-transcendental style. I went on like this till college; till I became an English major.
The written word became a way for me to transfer my thoughts into the here and now. I was able in just a few lines to capture images of fancy and thoughts of wildness, going on in my soul, down on paper. The illumination of this underground individual expression occuring in my soul was powerful. I wanted everyone to experience this feeling of true-self ejaculation. I wanted to bring people together under the common ground of self-expression and give you a place to share your thoughts on our ever converging world.
We are not elitists, but we do hold ourselves and the submissions we receive to a higher standard. Not because we want to be better than others, but because we believe truly great art comes from a desire to express which is most true to your self.
We look for the boldly unique, the pieces that speak more of the author's heart and mind than of the books he has read.
By Underground, We mean those who wish not for fame, but for the meager gain of personal satisfaction. Not for gold trophies, but to say, 'I was here'.
And with that, I leave you with this last thought,
If everything is nothing, then why not make this everything.
Undoubtedly Yours,
Bermuda
Monday, October 24, 2011
Suicidal Scriptors?
Originally posted Thursday, October 20, by Eric W. Strege at www.afewlinesmagazine.com
To our devout followers,
Recently I, while re-categorizing my library, became reacquainted with a book which I’m sure – at one time or another in my possession – was used as a doorstop. The book is Roland Barthes’ The Pleasure of the Text, a work of portentous literary criticism which serves as a Structuralist “manifesto” of sorts. In it, Barthes questions the notion of textual significance as driven by the vehicle of authorial notoriety or intent, which got me to thinking about the little bio “quips” usually attached to the submissions we at AFLM receive. I decided that this theory is something worthy of the readership’s attention and took it upon myself to compose a modest essay in regards to a section of Barthes’ text, aptly titled, “The Death of the Author.”
Roland Barthes, a luminary of the Structuralist movement, vehemently called for the literary public to distance themselves from the classical concept of authorial lordship through his evocatively titled essay, The Death of the Author, wherein he urges readers to separate literary works from their authors in order to liberate the writing from antiquated interpretive strictures. Barthes continues on to say that, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing”, and in so doing, devalues the text by implying that the work is singular in its objective and unmeritorious of multifaceted interpretation. Furthermore, in contrast to classical and romantic beliefs, Barthes regards authorial antecedence to a work as a fallacy, further postulating that, “the modern Scriptor is born simultaneously with the text”, the Scriptor existing only to produce, but not to explain the work. Barthes reinforces the theory of the “Intentional Fallacy”, in its rejection of the Author’s intended meaning as constituting the work’s primary import, through the development of his theory in which he established the Scriptor and text as co-creators of themselves, consequently making Authorial intent indefinite and variable.
Through the rejection of the Author or Scriptor, as regards textual interpretation, Barthes advocates individual literary explication, insisting that literary meaning is established by the impressions of the reader, and not by authorial authority. In so doing, Barthes’s devaluing of the author aims to properly acclaim the text, and celebrate its audience acceptance, rather than further aggrandizing the Author and his unequivocal analysis.
If you have made it this far, and haven’t been lured down the charlatanistic primrose path by more immediately gratifying distractions, you are to be both commended and congratulated, for a point is on the eminent horizon. As much as we respect all of our contributors for their efforts in sustaining the magazine with a constant stream of submissions, we are not able to accept all of them for one reason or the next. One reason, which has become more prevalent, is a seeming preponderance of effort put into the bio “quips”, as noted above. Most contributors use the given bio space to give a name and a way to contact them with the ruling on their piece. Some submitters, on the other hand, find this space appropriate to use in lauding themselves with what seems to be an endless enumeration of accolades and accomplishments. Others, still, commit an even more egregious transgression, that is, they use the space to tell the editors how the piece should be interpreted! Please be aware that I am by no means out to offend any readers, only to comment on some apparent bones of contention. It is our pleasure and purpose here at AFLM to consider so many great pieces of work from all across the genres and mediums for publication, and consider ourselves privileged to have such a loyal following of individuals who appreciate the contemporary literary heritage as much as we do. With that in mind, remember to let the quality your work speak for itself. Don’t try to dazzle us with claims of celebrity, and please do not stifle your piece by providing us a pre-packaged analysis. If the piece is a truly great work – like some of the pieces we receive are – its significance and urgency will be communicated through the given text, photograph, etc. In short, let’s all aspire to take a page out of Barthes’ book and further commit ourselves to the crafts of artistry, never forgetting that it is the work we leave behind that becomes our legacy.
With all due respect,
Eric W. Strege
To our devout followers,
Recently I, while re-categorizing my library, became reacquainted with a book which I’m sure – at one time or another in my possession – was used as a doorstop. The book is Roland Barthes’ The Pleasure of the Text, a work of portentous literary criticism which serves as a Structuralist “manifesto” of sorts. In it, Barthes questions the notion of textual significance as driven by the vehicle of authorial notoriety or intent, which got me to thinking about the little bio “quips” usually attached to the submissions we at AFLM receive. I decided that this theory is something worthy of the readership’s attention and took it upon myself to compose a modest essay in regards to a section of Barthes’ text, aptly titled, “The Death of the Author.”
Roland Barthes, a luminary of the Structuralist movement, vehemently called for the literary public to distance themselves from the classical concept of authorial lordship through his evocatively titled essay, The Death of the Author, wherein he urges readers to separate literary works from their authors in order to liberate the writing from antiquated interpretive strictures. Barthes continues on to say that, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing”, and in so doing, devalues the text by implying that the work is singular in its objective and unmeritorious of multifaceted interpretation. Furthermore, in contrast to classical and romantic beliefs, Barthes regards authorial antecedence to a work as a fallacy, further postulating that, “the modern Scriptor is born simultaneously with the text”, the Scriptor existing only to produce, but not to explain the work. Barthes reinforces the theory of the “Intentional Fallacy”, in its rejection of the Author’s intended meaning as constituting the work’s primary import, through the development of his theory in which he established the Scriptor and text as co-creators of themselves, consequently making Authorial intent indefinite and variable.
Through the rejection of the Author or Scriptor, as regards textual interpretation, Barthes advocates individual literary explication, insisting that literary meaning is established by the impressions of the reader, and not by authorial authority. In so doing, Barthes’s devaluing of the author aims to properly acclaim the text, and celebrate its audience acceptance, rather than further aggrandizing the Author and his unequivocal analysis.
If you have made it this far, and haven’t been lured down the charlatanistic primrose path by more immediately gratifying distractions, you are to be both commended and congratulated, for a point is on the eminent horizon. As much as we respect all of our contributors for their efforts in sustaining the magazine with a constant stream of submissions, we are not able to accept all of them for one reason or the next. One reason, which has become more prevalent, is a seeming preponderance of effort put into the bio “quips”, as noted above. Most contributors use the given bio space to give a name and a way to contact them with the ruling on their piece. Some submitters, on the other hand, find this space appropriate to use in lauding themselves with what seems to be an endless enumeration of accolades and accomplishments. Others, still, commit an even more egregious transgression, that is, they use the space to tell the editors how the piece should be interpreted! Please be aware that I am by no means out to offend any readers, only to comment on some apparent bones of contention. It is our pleasure and purpose here at AFLM to consider so many great pieces of work from all across the genres and mediums for publication, and consider ourselves privileged to have such a loyal following of individuals who appreciate the contemporary literary heritage as much as we do. With that in mind, remember to let the quality your work speak for itself. Don’t try to dazzle us with claims of celebrity, and please do not stifle your piece by providing us a pre-packaged analysis. If the piece is a truly great work – like some of the pieces we receive are – its significance and urgency will be communicated through the given text, photograph, etc. In short, let’s all aspire to take a page out of Barthes’ book and further commit ourselves to the crafts of artistry, never forgetting that it is the work we leave behind that becomes our legacy.
With all due respect,
Eric W. Strege
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)