References for Daredevil: Comic to Film

Brubaker, Ed. "Interview with Ed Brubaker." DaredevilManWithout Fear.com June 2006 October 24, 2008 ://www.manwithoutfear.com/interviews/ddINTERVIEW.shtml?id=Brubaker>.

Callahan, Timothy. "CBR Reviews." Comic Book Resources Oct. 26 2008 30 Oct 2008 ://comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=431>.

Daniels, Les. MARVEL Five Fabulous Decades of the Worlds' Greatest Comics. 1st American ed.. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993.

"Daredevil (Matthew Murdock)." Marvel Universe: the Official Marvel Wiki . 28 Oct 2008 http://www.marvel.com/universe/Main_Page

De Bliek, Augie. "Pipeline At Five." Comic Book Resources #262Jun 18, 2002 25 Oct 2008 ://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14130>.

De Bliek Jr.,Augie. “Daredevil Yellow”. Pipeline at Five A Long Look Back. Issue #262 http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14130

Ebert, Roger. "Daredevil." rogerebert.com 14 Feb. 2003 28 Oct 2008 ://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030214/REVIEWS/302140301/1023>.

Johnson, Mark Steven. Daredevil-Director's Cut. 20th Century Fox, Regency Enterprises and Marvel Enterprises, 2003.

Kozlovic, Anton Karl. "Spiderman, Superman---What's the Difference?." Kritikos Volume 3July 2006 25 Oct 2008 ://mailer.fsu.edu/~nr03/garnet-nr03/spiderman-superman.htm>.

Leo, Vince. "Daredevil." Qwipster's Movie Reviews. 2003. 28 Oct 2008 ://www.qwipster.net/daredevil.htm>.

Mithra, Kuljit. ""What did it mean to you personally and professionally to work on Daredevil?"." Daredevil manwithoutdear.com. 2005. 29Oct 2008 ://www.manwithoutfear.com/interviews/ddINTERVIEW.shtml?id=40th>.

Schumer, Arlen. The Silver Age of Comic Book Art. 1st American ed. Portland, Oregon: Collectors Press, 2003.

Turan, Kenneth. "Movie Review 'Daredevil'." Los Angeles Times The Guide 14 Feb. 2003 25Oct 2008 ://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan14feb14,0,5511955.story>.

Comic to Film Sequence

As I've brought together the various pieces of this project I seem to have played with time and the natural order in the blog land. In an ideal world it would be clear that the reading order should be:

1. Transition
2. Daredevil--In the Beginning
3. Daredevil Today---Comic Book Version
4. Daredevil--The Movie Reviews
5. Daredevil--The Director's Cut
6. A Second Chance for a Daredevil Movie?
7. Contrasts and Conclusions
8. References
   

I look forward to comments and questions!

Daredevil - The Director's Cut

The second chance for the movie comes with the Director's cut. This DVD adds about 30 minutes to the film. According to Director, Mark Steven Johnson, the additional footage provides a lot of backstory that is meaningful to comic book fans. The changes from the original theatrical release moved the PG-13 rating to an R. Evidently, additional brutality and strong language were to blame. I wonder about the different impact of seeing 'hand-drawn still pictures' of violence compared with a movie version, with (somewhat) ordinary humans, spewing copious amounts of blood, and most disturbing of all, complete with exaggerated sound effects.

The Director's cut of the Daredevil movie fills in a lot of missing comic book essentials--- but still can't reveal all. Events are compressed. According to the editor/producer, the intellectual content is not as important as pace."For example, Elektra seems to be someone Matt meets for the first time at the coffee shop, but in the comic book they first meet in highschool. Even in the Director's Cut it isn't explained why she is such a great fighter, nor why she seems to have a ritualistic dance in preparation for going after Bullseye--the man who killed her father.

The Director's Cut
Because if "Daredevil" seemed serious for a comic book, it is uninterestingly cartoonish for a movie. Its villains, from Michael Clarke Duncan's plus-sized Kingpin through Colin Farrell's over-the-top Bullseye, have a shopworn air about them, and the script's dialogue and situations have generic written all over them. That "Daredevil" should turn out to be neither daring nor devilish is somewhat of a surprise because filmmaker Johnson has been a washed-in-the-blood fan since he was a child. Not the obvious choice because of the nature of his previous work (writing both "Grumpy" and "Grumpier Old Men" and writing and directing the egregiously sentimental "Simon Birch"), he impressed the producers with his knowledge of and zeal for the material. Maybe it's that zeal that turned out to be the problem. Maybe the comic book mythos is so firmly entrenched in Johnson's head that he doesn't see that his screen version is only sporadically involving and not really compelling to those without that previous interest. This is Daredevil's world, after all, where things do not have a habit of working out as planned.

Another point that intrigued me in the movie was the Catholic element. In the Director's cut version, there is a scene with a mystery nun kissing young Matt on the forehead as he recovers in hospital. Is this a Madonna-mother-of-a-saviour moment? The priest who offers Matt/Daredevil an opportunity for confession intrigues me, too. Why doesn't Matt take him up on it? Wouldn't it be a great relief to share this burden of vengeance in the name of justice with at least one other person who would keep his secret? Johnson (the director) explains his original vision of the movie using phrases like "All that tortured Catholic stuff which is so great" and Frank Miller told me you're breaking my heart when you cut out the scenes with the nun" who seems to watch over both the child Matt Murdock at the time of his accident, and grown Matt as he attends church, but refuses confession

Contrasts and Conclusion

After diving into the world of the Daredevil comic book fan and immersing myself in responses to the movie I've learned that many people are passionate about Daredevil, his world and the many interpretations of it all.


The strength of the traditional comic book format is the room it provides for backstory. The detailed universe is complex and flexible.The characters move forward and backward in time at the whim of the creators. Multiple writers and artists have different eras---with fans downright fanatical about particular writers and artists, (e.g. creators, writer-editor Stan Lee, artist Bill Everett, Wally Wood, John Romita Sr., Gene Colan and Frank Miller). The fans of the comic book format are deeply invested in the world of the comics and they love the conventions of the genre.

The movie format is much more focused.Ultimately one vision, the director's/producer's, is what we see. There are all kinds of amazing special effects that physically impact the viewer. Sounds--we can hear and feel the punches land in the fight scenes. The lighting and camera work focus our eyes exactly where the director wants us to look. The music provides a pulsing background that affects us subliminally. Viewers are given warnings of impending action when the music rises. Even the opening scenes with the names of stars, directors and producers appearing in cgi Braille, give a depth to the experience that is different from that available to a reader.

One challenge of the movie business, though is target audience---young males. The Daredevil film was trimmed to 100 minutes because that's what the movie-going public wants. If the story is filled with too many important-to-the-fan details the story lags (according to the producers).


When I watched the movie and read the comic books I enjoyed both experiences AND found them quite different. Because I am not long-time comic reader, I really enjoyed the movie--especially the villains. Collin Ferrill as Bullseye was maniacal and over-the-top and I loved it. I also enjoyed Jon Favreau as Matt's long-suffering friend Foggy. Joe Pantoliano as Ben Urich the investigative journalist whose articles tie the mystery of this story together was key in helping me understand the intricacies of the plot and Daredevil's world.


I think that this comic book made a pretty good transition to film---but it could be better. 'Whose' version of better is the ultimate questions.

A Second Chance for a Daredevil Movie?

This article explores the possible ( a remake of Daredevil) without sugarcoating the reasons for the original flop.


Op/Ed- Movie Mulligans, What Else Hollywood Should Do-Over
By Michael Avila
posted: 20 June 2008 04:56 pm ET* (for full article follow link)

.....Who’s out there that could get a second chance. And who actually deserves one?

We’re talking about one of Marvel’s Old Guard, one of its most grounded-in-reality characters, with a history of rich storylines. The 2003 film wasn’t terrible, but writer-director Mark Steven Johnson’s fanboy-ish determination to squeeze in too many plot threads and an absurd number of in-jokes ultimately ruined it.

Marvel Studios’ brain-trust should ditch the S&M dungeon red leather jumpsuit, get an actor to play Matt Murdock who’s not dating a paparazzi fave and hand the franchise over to a director like Peter Berg or Joe Carnahan. Jon Favreau could ace this project but a clean break is needed for any reboot and since he played Foggy in the first one, he’s out. And leave Elektra out, too. The ill-conceived spinoff with Jennifer Garner ruined that character.

But the first Daredevil made $102 million despite awful reviews. Imagine if the film would have been any good?

What interests me here is the recognition of the deep history of the Marvel comic hero, and the story lines that hold solid appeal. The suggestion that part of the reason the movie wasn't good was the director's attempt to put too much history, too many comic book references and too much story into the movie, underlines some major differences between movies and comic books. To make a good movie, you need to make some tough choices---more (plot, characters etc.) is not necessarily better. With a comic book you can spin a story out over several issues, following a story arc suited to the format.

The second paragraph raises some interesting issues about costumes and actors. In comic books, it is a given that bodies are exaggerated (i.e.more muscular if male, more buxom if female). In a movie, even a superhero movie, characters should look human, not like completely computer generated images with unbelievable musculature. Computer generated images also brings to mind manufactured Hollywood movie stars. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner (and their budding romance at the time of filming) detracted from the story being told. In my opinion, Affleck looked more pouty than vengeful. As for Warner, she played an Elektra that was unlike anything in the comic book. The plot line of the movie left some gaping holes about who Elektra was, how she came to be such a skilled fighter, and how she and Murdock/Daredevil came to be entwined.

Daredevil--In the beginning

The Marvel Universe website and Daredevil Wikipedia entry, provide the most detailed overviews of the Daredevil character imaginable. For copious information check them out. For the purposes of this comparison, I've selected two articles that give the devoted fan flavour of the Comic book superhero, Daredevil.

The first article, places Daredevil as the 3rd most popular superhero character in the combined Marvel and DC universes. This is major endorsement of Daredevil as a character who has withstood the test of time (and of multiple artistic visions). Since Daredevil's creation in 1964, many different writers and artists have put their imprint on the character. In fact, finding out exactly how many had contributed to the vision became an impossible task! (For more details about most of the contributors check out The Man Without Fear). The recap of the Daredevil story below, hits the high points of a very long and convoluted series of stories, (much like all successful comic book series).

Comic books share some similarities with the soap opera genre: characters surmount incredible odds, succeeding beyond incredible obstacles...only to eventually fail miserably....then overcome all difficulties once again, in time to find true love... only to have the beloved brutally murdered by an archenemy. Frequently (and miraculously), characters return from the dead, or from some secret incarceration. The realism of the world doesn't apply---high drama rules--and that is half of the fun.

Daredevil

by Brian Cronin
Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett (with help from Jack Kirby), Daredevil made his debut in the pages of his own self-titled comic book in 1964. Matt Murdock was a successful attorney who was secretly the superhero Daredevil.

The catch?

Matt was blind.

When Matt was a kid, he saved an old man from being hit by a truck, but the truck was carrying radioactive materials that splashed on to Matt, blinding him for life. However, the materials also ended up giving Matt a kind of superpower - all his senses were heightened, to the point where he could read newspapers just by reading the ink on the page with his finger.

In addition, he gained a sort of Radar sense, like a Bat, only not sound-based, Matt just basically had a supernatural sense of where people were around him. It was how he was able to operate as a superhero, and how no one was able to connect him with blind attorney, Matt Murdock, because how could a blind guy do this?

Matt was a basic superhero for many years, during which time he was notably involved with his secretary, Karen Page, and the superhero Black Widow (they even shared his comic for awhile, as Daredevil and Black Widow). Matt’s law partner, and best friend, was Foggy Nelson.This all changed with the arrival of Frank Miller as the writer of the book. Miller introduced an old girlfriend of Matt’s called Elektra, who was a dangerous assassin. He also made Matt into a sort of a ninja, introducing a heretofore unknown sensei of Matt’s called Stick. Miller also made the Kingpin, a Spider-Man mob villain, into Daredevil’s arch-nemesis, while cementing the supervillain assassin, Bullseye, created a little while before Miller took over the book by Marv Wolfman, into a force to be reckoned with, even to the point of having Bullseye KILL Elektra.

Later on, Miller returned to the character, as Karen Page (who had left years ago to become an actress) was now a drug addict who sold Daredevil’s secret identity. It got to the Kingpin, who then proceeded to tear apart Matt’s life. In the end, though, Matt was too strong, and along with Karen, he began a new life.Eventually, he even regained his law license.Sadly, Bullseye struck again, this time killing KAREN, as well.Reeling from her death, Matt was spiraling. He had his identity published in the papers and he even attempted to put HIMSELF in place as the new Kingpin of Hell’s Kitchen. During this period he married Milla Donovan, who is also blind. Matt was able to recover from this period, and even was able to refute the identity issue (although everyone pretty much thinks he is Daredevil now). He is now back to doing what he does best, practice law and patrol the streets as Daredevil

This next article, written by columnist Augie De Bliek Jr., for Comic Book Resources, shows just how seriously devoted fans take their superhero stories, and how much they enjoy and distinguish the efforts of different writers, artists, colorists, and in this case, book designers.

Daredevil Yellow
Augie De Blieck Jr., Columnist, Comic Book Resources--Pipeline, Issue #262

For those who might be coming in late, Marvel originally presented DD: YELLOW as a six-issue mini-series with story by Jeph Loeb and art by Tim Sale. They went back to Daredevil's origins and crafted a remarkable love story between Karen Page and Matt Murdock. That's the mostly-hidden arc for the series. What you see is a lot about Matt taking up legal studies in an effort to avenge his father's murder, some early superhero hijinks, and the start of Nelson & Murdock.

The thing that the story keeps coming back to, though, is the love triangle between Page, Nelson, and Murdock. It's the focus of the doomed ending of the fourth issue and the heartbreaking ending of the fifth. It's the point of contention between Nelson and Murdock, and it's the part that grounds the story to a level of normalcy. It's not all super powered heroics, and even those bits cross over into the romance. But that's OK. It all fits. Murdock has to learn to balance his career and his vigilante-ism. In fact, it's about the only missing point in the book for me: How can a man who's passed the bar and knows the law inside and out also engage in a form of vigilante justice at the same time? It's probably the most fascinating part of his character, but something that would require a book of its own. This was not the place for it. It's also something that's being touched on in the current DAREDEVIL series. Loeb and Sale have been working together long enough now to know each other's strengths. Loeb can create snappy dialogue and a story with heart. Sale can inject it with the right amount of mood and a strong sense of realism or surrealism, depending on what's needed. In the case of DD: YELLOW, it's definitely a realistically-drawn story. You will believe every brick is on that building and that every ceiling tile belongs on the ceiling. You believe that because Sale isn't afraid to draw it and, even more remarkably, the pages don't clutter up with it. Indeed, the larger format to this hardcover only helps to bring out the detail. The larger format is a big aid to the storytelling. On some of the full-page splashes, you'll think you're looking at an art book.

Sale's art hasn't looked this impressive since SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS. In DD: YELLOW it's his use of the ink wash technique that sells the book. Not only does it look impressive, but it also helps set the book in the past with its murky and muddy tones. The story takes place not just at the beginning of Daredevil's career, but also at the time that the origin was created, in the early 1960s. From the cobblestone streets to the fancy dresses and the period hairstyles, Sale leaves no stone unturned. Sales' inkwash (combined with the meticulous colors of Matt Hollingsworth) helps to sell the book as looking a little "older" and realistic.

I remember picking up the hardcover printing of Loeb and Sale's BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN. I said at the time that it was the standard of what a comic book (book with a capital "B") should be. It looks like a normal prose book. It's got a nice dust jacket. It prints a large story. It fits well on your bookshelf. It's reasonably priced. SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY followed the same format. Now, we can add a book from the competition to that same section of bookshelf.

Marvel has one-upped DC in recent months with their hardcover program. Not only do they create attractive hardcovers that are nicely designed, but they pack them with bonus material at the end where available, and even print it on larger paper. Right now, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN Volume 1 hardcover is the single best use for the format. Books like DAREDEVIL: YELLOW may be smaller, but they're no less impressive. This book includes a little behind the scene piece on the making of the comic, including a look at the original script, some pencil sketches, and the final ink washing.

But it's still the story that takes the show. DAREDEVIL has had a lot of good ones lately. Heck, even the Frank Miller run is available again. For a character that was all but written off a few years ago, it's been a heck of a comeback. DAREDEVIL: YELLOW is a great addition to the collection.

(The book, I should add, contains one of my favorite funny sequences in modern comics. In the third issue, Matt Murdock takes on a pool hall filled with some wisecracking college kids. Not only does the blind Murdock turn around and demolish the punks in a round of billiards, but he deflates their barbs with his own series of Helen Keller jokes. It reminded me of one of my favorite movies of all time, Steve Martin's ROXANNE, where Martin's character reels off a list of 21 jokes about having a large nose as a means of deflating the bully at the bar. That movie, of course, is based on CYRANO DE BERGERAC.)

Daredevil Today---Comic book version

Hot off the press is this October 26th, 2008 of the most recent Daredevil Comic book--- issue #112. Writing in CBR reviews, Timothy Callahan, offers an overview of the long arc of the Daredevil story. He underlines the influence of multiple writers and artists, each taking the character in different directions, through different eras. This issue is interesting in that it introduces Lady Bullseye, a deadly female version of the maniacal Bullseye we met in the movie version. (Same sculpted forehead scar). Callahan writes:

As dark as this issue is, and it's literally very dark -- full of heavy blacks and plenty of night scenes -- "Daredevil" feels more vibrantly alive than it has in a long time. This is a far cry from a light-hearted comic, but it seems to have shaken off the shackles of the burdensome melodrama. Brubaker and Lark have embraced the Frank Miller building blocks of this series, adding 50% more ninjas and giving Daredevil a mysterious new costumed foe who just happens to be a beautiful, and deadly, woman. Perhaps it's not that Brubaker is taking this series in a new direction, but that he's returning it to its roots, and doing it in his own particular way. Without a doubt, though, "Daredevil" has now regained its status as one of the must-read Marvel comics. It's the Brubaker/Lark "Daredevil" comic that you expected a couple of years ago, finally free of the Bendis influence.

This is a big theme to fans of comic books---different writers and artists do very different things to beloved characters. Fans (and reviewers), have strong reactions to changes. Many fans have a detailed knowledge of the Marvel universe so opinions about different character interpretations ring out loud and clear.

Transition

I'm picking up where I stopped blogging last April as I concluded my Information Technology for Learning course (University of Alberta, EDES 545 Winter 08).

The next few postings are assignments for my second course, LIS 518 Comic Books and Graphic Novels in School and Public Libraries, (University of Alberta, Fall 08). This will be a good record for me---and presumably no one will read it unless they are interested.

This is a continuing question I have about blogs---do they ever disappear?

Daredevil - The Movie Reviews

The Roger Ebert Review from 2003 is one of the more positive I've found. Ebert definitely is among the most charitable of the reviewers giving Daredevil a solid B. Ebert is a good and entertaining writer. I like his description of the relationship between Daredevil and Elektra

She and Daredevil are powerfully attracted to each other, and even share some PG-13 sex, which is a relief because when superheroes have sex at the R level, I am always afraid someone will get hurt. There is a rather beautiful scene where he asks her to stand in the rain because his ears are so sensitive they can create an image of her face from the sound of the raindrops.

Contrast this with USA TODAY review by Mike Clark who gives Daredevil a solid D+

The two leads show their love for each other by engaging in Matrix-like punches, flights and flips, already a movie cliché before the second Matrix pic can even make it into theaters. One early fight sequence is so dark, fuzzy and impersonal that the participants look like video-game combatants, which might be the point, given the target audience.

Ebert takes a poke or two at the comic genre as he explores Daredevil's human-plus athletic abilities--but to my mind movies and magical abilities are already entwined.

Daredevil has the ability to dive off tall buildings, swoop through the air, bounce off stuff, land lightly and so forth. There is an explanation for this ability, but I tend to tune out such explanations because, after all, what do they really explain? I don't care what you say, it's Superman's cape that makes him fly. Comic fans, however, study the mythology and methodology with the intensity of academics. It is reassuring, in this world of inexplicabilities, to master a limited subject within a self-contained universe. Understand, truly understand, why Daredevil defies gravity, and the location of the missing matter making up 90 percent of the universe can wait for another day.

Ebert praises the actors, too.

They play their roles more or less as if they were real, which is a novelty in a movie like this, and Duncan in particular has a presence that makes the camera want to take a step back and protect its groin.

He sums up the super-hero movie genre, the script which varies only slightly...

The movie is, in short, your money's worth, better than we expect, more fun than we deserve. I am getting a little worn out describing the origin stories and powers of superheroes, and their relationships to archvillains, gnashing henchmen and brave, muscular female pals. They weep, they grow, they astonish, they overcome, they remain vulnerable, and their enemies spend inordinate time on wardrobe, grooming and props, and behaving as if their milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese. Some of their movies, like this one, are better than others.

In the Daredevil movie, the vision is mainly that of one man, screenplay writer-director Mark Steven Johnson.

Daredevil succeeds, for the most part, because the creators aren't just filmmakers, but actual fans of the comic book. Scattered throughout the film are homages to the comic book's glory days, name-dropping such famous writers as "Miller, Mack, and Bendis." There are some visual homages to some of the more famous events in the series as well, such as the shot of Daredevil clinging to a cross, or in the confrontation between Elektra (Garner, 13 Going on 30), Murdock's love interest, and Bullseye (Farrell, The Recruit), the assassin sent to murder Elektra's father. Cameo appearances by Marvel creator, Stan Lee, and the man who helped re-popularize the character in recent years, filmmaker Kevin Smith, also should entertain those who might have a passing knowledge of the comic book character.

reviewed by Vince Leo http://www.qwipster.net/daredevil.htm

Daredevil* (for complete review follow link)

By Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Feb.14, 2003 ... Because if "Daredevil" seemed serious for a comic book, it is uninterestingly cartoonish for a movie. Its villains, from Michael Clarke Duncan's plus-sized Kingpin through Colin Farrell's over-the-top Bullseye, have a shopworn air about them, and the script's dialogue and situations have generic written all over them. That "Daredevil" should turn out to be neither daring nor devilish is somewhat of a surprise because filmmaker Johnson has been a washed-in-the-blood fan since he was a child. Not the obvious choice because of the nature of his previous work ... he impressed the producers with his knowledge of and zeal for the material. Maybe it's that zeal that turned out to be the problem. Maybe the comic book mythos is so firmly entrenched in Johnson's head that he doesn't see that his screen version is only sporadically involving and not really compelling to those without that previous interest. This is Daredevil's world, after all, where things do not have a habit of working out as planned.

I found the 'Times guidelines' : Mild by the standards of the genre of special interest. What does this mean?What is the point of guidelines if they vary from genre to genre? This also reminds me of the Director's cut comments where Johnson explained that the Director's cut got an R rating because of added bruatlity--specifically when Bullseye stabs Elektra in the R version, he also kisses her, pulling at her bottom lip. Perhaps it is sexualized violence that is determined to be inappropriate for 13 year olds....

A heartfelt reflection

Thank you Jenn, for the invitation to write a heartfelt reflection. That is about the only kind I know how to write. I've been gone from the academic world for such a long time that my formal writing muscle is pretty lax.

There have been some real lows in my experience, mostly related to my anxiety about doing it (everything) properly. This is too bad, since I know just plunging in, and doing something advances my learning. In fact, I would say this experience has been transformative. I began my first on-line course at the University of Alberta very aware of some major holes in my knowledge base and here, at the end of this part of the journey, I have lots of new language, new ideas and new tools---all kinds of resources that will continue to impact the contribution I can make as a teacher.

First, the low points.

*My confidence plunged pretty regularly. I kept forgetting my intention to be playful in my learning. I kept forgetting to allow myself to be a beginner.

*Getting used to the online course was the first tech challenge for me. I took quite a bit of time to understand where things were and how to access them.

* I needed more human contact at the beginning. I was disappointed in myself for not just reaching out. (Every time I did I was encouraged and supported)!

*I found it very frustrating to spend so much time looking for things---again, when I asked for direction it was offered freely. I spent a lot of time feeling stupid (which is the antithesis of the zone of proximal development). A counter-productive use of energy.

* I loved and hated reading the other class blogs. I was impressed and amazed by the quality and variety of the offerings...so I frequently felt that mine was inadequate, which contributed to my mountain of self-doubt. Not that I needed any help with that! I thought a lot about the powerful experience of learning from others, the knowledge of the collective. I felt privileged to read my classmates' blogs.

* I struggled to get everything read--course readings, blogs, research. I appreciated receiving comments from others, but I struggled to find time to make comments myself. I thought a lot about making useful comments but again, didn't feel that I had new or insightful comments to share.

*I found the pace quite overwhelming. There are many things I want to go back to, to play with and learn more about, outside of the structured time-line. The RSS was especially confusing.

The Highlights

*One of the highlights was working on the wiki project with Elizabeth and Ronda. I learned so much from each of them. In one phone conversation we planned how to bring our different pieces of the wiki pie together. Because Elizabeth had created a wiki before, she jumped right in and got us started. She was also brave enough to change hosts when it became apparent that the wikispaces site was not too user-friendly. Ronda took the lead on the Asselin research article, summarizing and synthesizing a lot of dense material. Working together shifted my sense of isolation and I learned so much through the process of creating together.

*Following conversations on different wiki topics was eye opening. The posts seemed vividly connected to the real world of teaching. I preferred the wiki format to the discussion board because it was easier to follow the thread of the discussion--both visually and thematically. (The dense text on the discussion board hurt my eyes! I'm sure I will eventually learn how to make an adjustment to what I see on my screen, but this is another area where to figure out how to change the screen image, took time I couldn't find).

Things I loved about wikis--

*Having the ability to contribute from different places was amazing. This opens a whole new world of group possibilities.

*The shared conversation was powerful. Scheduling the presentations and discussions over several days brought a real focus to the experience. With the discussion board system our class conversation was more scattered, though once I realized I could follow a 'thread' I had an improved experience.

*As we moved through the different wiki presentations I felt more connected to others, began to see aspects of personality (which made it less intimidating for me). The personal stories are profound.

*I deeply appreciated the richness of reflection from teachers in the field--because I don't have all those teaching years behind me these professional conversations helped me gain a more current understanding of educational realities.


*At some point Jenn reminded me that the research based on my experience was valuable. I realized then that lots of people are like me--not technology experts, but open to the possibilities. The fact that researchers are actively seeking ways to help adult learners develop the interest and ability to use Web 2.0 tools is exciting. Being involved in an innovative area makes me feel like I'm making a useful contribution.

*I really got to love playing around with the blog. I love writing informally, with a focus on reflection. I enjoyed bringing my personality to the blog. Creating a learning log of my experiences will help me remind myself that I've come pretty far from where I started.

*Having my kids help me with different aspects of the class was amazing. Right from the start, Thomas helped me get going on the new computer, got me established with the U of A site, and was available for answering my frequently befuddled queries. Basically he helped me through a lot of stuff that the HELP desk never could.

*Daniel was my in-house go-to-guy.There are some deep chasms in my understanding of all things computerish. Daniel's calm, unflappable ways of talking me through times of intense distress when I 'lost' something I'd spent hours on makes me want to send him directly to the faculty of Education. The guy is a born teacher.

*Sarah was my Facebook and photo expert. She very gallantly let me use pictures of her in my Voicethreads piece. In fact, watching her play with my mac helped remind me that this technology stuff could be fun.

*Creating the podcast with all three of my kids was a real high point. Because Thomas is podcasting regularly he really knows the ins and outs of editing and posting. Trying a podcast without his support would be quite a different experience. Reading about the challenges and frustrations other classmates experienced as they fought to bring their podcasts into the world made me appreciate the gift of technical expertise he shared with me.

*I liked the regular, specific feedback. My entries improved once I had a better understanding of the format.

* Realizing how far I've come is the ultimate highlight. At the beginning of this course I didn't know how to create a hyperlink, or add a picture to my blog. I had never used any of the tools we explored. No photo bucket, no facebook, no youtube, no RSS feed... you get my drift. Just re-reading my own blog is a highlight!

My final highlight is the sense of gratitude and appreciation I feel toward my classmates and instructor for their company on this learning adventure.

Sharing the treasure--Welcome to Wikiland

This assignment has been bubbling away in the back of my mind throughout the course. I've been looking at the systems in place at school, the technology that is used regularly and creatively, and the places where it is just plain avoided. One thing I notice is the wide range of interests and abilities among the staff. At one end I see lots of teachers still struggle with the basics of using the First Class email system and the on-line databases. At the other end of the spectrum are the media teachers who are operating in another sphere entirely.

Since my own journey into techland only dates back to the start of this course, I know which group I will have the most impact on. I've been thinking about the best ways to demonstrate some of the possibilities of the new Web 2.0 technology tools, and how I might ultimately entice participation.

The web 2.0 tool that I would like to introduce to staff is the wiki. Most secondary teachers operate in (relative) isolation. I can see different departments using wikis initially to share resources, to organize themselves, and to communicate. Of particular benefit would be keeping a log of departmental decisions and goals from year to year.

Based on my experience, I know having support, the opportunity to play, and the incentive to produce something useful is motivating. The way I plan to lure them into playing with the technology is to offer to set up a wiki for different departments. Some departments are full of teachers who are already technologically inclined, using the internet in many creative and powerful ways as individuals. I would propose a wiki as a way to bring some of these web adventurers together for collaboration and as jumping off points for departments. I think that the collaborative possibilities will appeal to these teachers and that will lead eventually to an interest in using wikis with students.

Scenario One

The science teachers (10) share an office. They form a cozy little pod unto themselves. They already share resources, ideas and technology as it applies to their area. They don't frequent the library, but they have already created a web of support for each other. I think this department could use a wiki as a place to:

• house information for new teachers and interns
• schedule use of labs
• gather useful weblinks by topic and grade
• store literacy techniques and practices
• share the most successful lesson plans, best practices
• follow breaking news science stories
• publish safety rules for labs

With this group, a conversation and a bit of planning with the department head, followed by a short in-service presentation during a department meeting, would probably be enough to set them on their way to successful wiki use. I would offer to create the wiki and enter some initial information, but they are technologically savvy enough to take it from there.

In my presentation I would use the Wikis in Plain English video and references from my favourite source, Will Richardson's Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms:

So let's take a minute and imagine the possibilities here. Your students, with just a little help from you, could create book report wikis, what-I-did-this-summer wikis, brainstorming wikis, poetry wikis, notes-from-class wikis, sixth-grade wikis, history of the school or community wikis, formula wikis, wikis for individual countries they might be studying, political party wikis, exercise wikis... you get the idea. And you could create similar spaces for colleagues to save research or do articulation or much, much more. Whatever topic might lend itself to the collaborative collection of content relating to its study, wiki is a great choice.

Scenario Two

The English Teachers have no common (physical) area to share, so the monthly departmental meetings are about their only chance to be together. The responsibilities of department head are shared by two teachers each year, and rotated through most members of the department. (There are a few lone wolves....) Full attendance is difficult since many teachers teach classes outside the timetable. They do some communicating by email, but this too, is a challenge for them. For the most part, these are not folks who enjoy using technology. Playing with technology will only happen under duress--- (and I believe duress invalidates the possibility of play!) These too, are creative people who would soon dream up hundreds of powerful ways to use wikis with students if their initial experience with wikis was positive. This is where I would bring my special gifts of empathy and gentle support onto the scene. I would offer to set up a wiki for them, and include some basic, useful information, like department literacy goals, which novels are taught to which grade, number of texts available, department meeting minutes, etc. Then I would spend time with each member of the group, exploring the document with the learner 'driving the mouse'.

My actions would be supported by the research we looked at on our wiki and by common sense. Just offering to check in with people as they learn how to use a new tool provides a bit of a safety net. I would never present myself as a tech-expert, but as a curious and interested companion for the adventure.

A final aside

There is a lot more detailed support for introducing Web 2.0 tools into the school that I want to gather and organize, but my time is gone, and I know that I'll never be finished. I resolve to take this next step of introducing others to these tools and concepts, sharing my (incomplete) knowledge and my enthusiasm. I know that by sharing I'll deepen my understanding, and by working with others intuition and synchronicity enter the equation and who knows where that will take us!

Blog Reading for Professional Development

I must admit that when our instructor, Jenn, asked us to establish an RSS feed from Google Reader, I did just that--but I didn't really understand what it was or how it was going to help me. I remember being a bit confused about just who to subscribe to, and just what it was I was signing up for. I remember checking through the weblinks provided on Blackboard and subscribing willy-nilly to anything that sounded remotely useful. And then I pretty much forgot about it as I lurched from week to week trying to figure out the new Web 2.0 tool du jour. Occasionally my google reader page would appear as I roamed cyberspace looking for suitable materials for my blog. Sometimes I even found something directly related to my task-at-hand, and began to think 'hey, this really is useful---I have to remember this'.

What I'm confessing is the fact that I didn't really understand that I was supposed to check this page regularly--daily even perhaps! At this point I'm only beginning to read particular blogs regularly both for pleasure and for professional development. The pleasure comes from enjoying the personal styles of the writing and the professional development comes from knowing that I am responding to the thoughts and themes of the gurus in the world of Teacher-librarians and Information Technology.

The gurus are key. One of the biggest challenges for me, is knowing I've found a reputable source. The volume of information on the web is mindboggling--- 50 million blogs already??? Who should I pay attention to and how will I find them? Plunging into this program, is key because I have an instructor I trust to show me the way. I have frequently felt lost and confused. Remembering that our instructor was available for amplification and re-direction helped tremendously.

A frequent experience for me of reading blogs for professional development is getting sidetracked. Because bloggers have the ability to add a hyperlink to their writing I am frequently lured away from the blog I'm reading to explore a connected site. This is both positive and problematic. Quick explanations and clarifications are available at the click of a key and that is a good thing. But the trip to the hyperlink can lead to another, and another, and pretty soon an hour or two has passed and I've read some very interesting things, BUT I haven't got through the material I needed to cover, and I'm still not sure what was essential. Nonetheless, I have gone a lot of interesting places on the web and the cumulative effect of all the reading I've done means that the language and themes are sounding less foreign. I guess I'm still thinking about this as an immersion experience...

One of my favourite sources is Lee Lefever, who along with his wife and partner Sachi, produce the In Plain English videos. Their videos are for those of us who are new to technology-land but ready to begin using some of the Web 2.0 tools. I recently heard LeFever interviewed on Spark, a CBC radio program and podcast. He explained that they try to whittle away the extraneous, to focus on how this tool can be used---not a detailed technical explanation of how it works.

LeFever writes on his blog how his own education shaped his thinking about effective ways to present information. He described the problems he encountered whenever new information and ways of thinking were presented without context.

Talkin' Bout My Education By leelefever on March 27, 2008 - 10:56am

Looking back, context is what I have always missed in education. If someone could put a new idea in the context of the real world or show me how it enables other things, I would get it. It's just my learning style - I need the big picture before the details make any sense. By diving directly into T accounts and least common denominators, I got caught up in trying to memorize instead of understand. What I needed to know was why - why this works the way it does - and why it matters to me.

So, I think the connection to our style of videos is obvious. They are based on all the things that don't work for me in education. When I see explanations on the Web, the remind me of school - they assume too much. They sometimes dive directly into how something works and spend little time on context.

For me, it's a big problem - a problem that I believe others feel too. When it comes time for me to try to explain something, it just feels right to look at the world from the perspective that would have made sense to me that first day of accounting class - build meaning with context first, then explore details.

Reading LeFever's blog has helped me think about the ways video can be used in education. The low-tech look of the videos models a way of sharing information that is accessible to students and teachers. I especially like the fact that you don't see any part of the speaker except his hands. We are so bombarded by perfect images of perfect bodies it is very refreshing to see how effective simple visuals are. In fact, I can imagine making a video in this style myself.

Joyce Valenza' s blog at School Library Journal is another that I read regularly. She helped my organizational challenges, by starting off the year with a detailed and hyperlinked list of major themes for school librarians and Web 2.0 technology. As I progressed through this course, looking at one new Web tool after another, I found myself returning to her site, and this particular blog entry, over and over.

That said, I do find the frequency of her posts a bit overwhelming. Maybe it's because of her high level of expertise and involvement in the field, but sometimes I don't really understand what she's writing about. She uses so many acronyms that don't mean anything to me (yet). A lot of her topics really remind me that she is writing about the school library world in the United States. I would really like to find a Canadian version of Valenza... For example, one of her recent posts explored copyright issues, something I'd really like to understand better, but I'm still wondering about the Canadian application. At this point in my learning, spending more time at her virtual library would probably be more useful to me.

Will Richardson is another blogger I like to read. Something in his style leaves me feeling more reflective, more part of the conversation. Maybe his posts are a little more philosophical. When I read Valenza I feel kind of frantic---like there is no way I will ever absorb all this important stuff, whereas with Richardson there is lots of new information but it is presented in a more bite-sized way. Of course I'm also fond of Richardson because I found his book, Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for the Classroom extremely helpful. Being able to re-read, and highlight the text is still works for me.


There are many more blogs out there to read, but for me, too many, quickly becomes too much. I will close with the insights presented by Mike Curtain, writing on RSS and Blogs as Professional Development, who acknowledges my blog fatigue AND reminds me that the complexity of the diverse voices ultimately will benefit me as a learner.

For a long time I’ve been looking at models of professional development that go beyond the one-shot after-school workshop. As I’ve studied models of adult learning and become more familiar with the ways that teachers are successful at improving their practice, I’ve realized that good professional development experiences share a few core qualities:

• They are sustained, occurring over weeks, months, or even years.
• They are gradual and incremental, involving a lot of short but connected steps with moments of reflection and integration in between.
• They are collaborative, involving questions, support, and conversation with other teachers in similar situations.
• They directly meet the teacher’s needs, offering solutions to real problems in our every day experience in the classroom.
• Over time, they change the way we see the world and therefore what we do with our students each day in the classroom.

As I become more invested in reading and tracking blogs through RSS, I’m coming to realize that those 15 minute sessions browsing headlines in Pageflakes and posting comments on blogs are starting to add up. Every day I have a little opportunity to see what others are doing and to ask myself why I do what I do and how I could do it better.

When a teacher starts using an RSS aggregator to keep on top of news stories, blog posts, and wiki updates, she is really taking the reins and becoming the editor-in-chief of her own professional development journal. “I want to learn about differentiating instruction in a social studies classroom and using a SmartBoard. I found six or seven experts in each area and they are going to be frequent contributors to my journal. When I don’t understand or disagree, I’m going to let them know and listen carefully to their responses and the comments of other people like me. At the end of the year, I’m going to know a lot more about these topics than I do now.”

The best part of it is that the singular voice of the workshop lecturer or methods text (shudder) gives way to a cacophony of differing agendas, viewpoints, backgrounds, and ideas. We are forced to confront the complexity of our classroom experience and to forge - and frequently thereafter to re-visit and re-evaluate - our own understandings and practices. Simple answers provided by gurus don’t long satisfy intelligent teachers: they need to pick and choose from a buffet of best practices and ideas. Our RSS professional development journal does just that.

RSS feeds --what are they and how do they work?

RSS stands for Real Simple Syndication, a Web tool that helps us consume information in efficient and relevant ways. Will Richardson calls them 'The New Killer App for Educators', and he has devoted a whole chapter to this topic in his book, Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms.

In simple terms, Weblogs (and an ever-growing number of other sites) generate a behind-the-scenes code in a language similar to HTML called XML. This code, usually referred to as a feed (as in news feed), makes it possible for readers to subscribe to the content that is created on a particular Weblog so they no longer have to visit the blog itself to get it....the content comes to you.

Remembering which websites I want to check in with regularly by going to the different sites takes time and a good memory. Even if I remember to bookmark useful sites, and arrange them by topic, I still get overwhelmed by the numbers and I run out of time. I'm never sure if I've read the most current information or just the top of my list.

The RSS feeds allow me to use a feed collector, a type of software called an aggregator.
Here's some more information from Wikipedia:

RSS

RSS
Screenshot of an RSS feed as seen in Mozilla Thunderbird
File extension	.rss, .xml
MIME type	application/rss+xml (Registration Being Prepared)[1]
Extended from	XML

RSS is a family of Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content such as blog entries, news headlines, and podcasts.^[2] An RSS document (which is called a "feed" or "web feed" ^[3] or "channel") contains either a summary of content from an associated web site or the full text. RSS makes it possible for people to keep up with web sites in an automated manner that can be piped into special programs or filtered displays.^[3]

RSS content can be read using software called an "RSS reader", "feed reader" or an "aggregator". The user subscribes to a feed by entering the feed's link into the reader or by clicking an RSS icon in a browser that initiates the subscription process. The reader checks the user's subscribed feeds regularly for new content, downloading any updates that it finds.

The initials "RSS" are used to refer to the following formats:

• Really Simple Syndication (RSS 2.0)
• RDF Site Summary (RSS 1.0 and RSS 0.90)
• Rich Site Summary (RSS 0.91).

RSS formats are specified using XML, a generic specification for the creation of data formats. Although RSS formats have evolved since March 1999,^[4] the RSS icon ("") first gained widespread use in 2005/2006.

Of particular interest to me is learning about the icon , and learning to watch for it when I see a blog I would like to receive regular information from. Noting that the icon has only recently gained wide usage in 2005/2006 reminds my just how new this tool is, and that helps me be more accepting of my fumbles using it.

I found it easy to sign up for a feed reader from google, and at first I received a good flow of information (Okay, it was overwhelming but I was pleased that the tool seemed to be fulfilling its function). Then about the middle of March the information stopped flowing. I've spent quite a bit of time subscribing and re-subscribing, but no luck. When I can find the time, I will consult my local experts. I'm having that feeling regularly with the technology tools I've explored in this course. I'll need to go back and play with everything to feel more comfortable using Web 2.0 tools.

Video: RSS in Plain English

Lee Lefever does it again!

Facebook reflections

Social Networks are one of the Web 2.0 tools I actually knew a little about at the start of this course--Why, you wonder? Isn't Facebook more of a teen thing? Yes indeed, I feel like a real geezer when sign into Facebook. My own personal use of Facebook has remained very limited. I've connected with a few friends who live far away, and that's kind of nice, but that is pretty much it. Oh, and I'm connected to a lot of my kids' friends and to my nieces and nephews.Sometimes I find the news feed on their activities quite jarring--- and I'm pretty sure they're not that interested in my activities, but they wouldn't find out much from my profile anyway. It is just one more thing that I don't really have time or energy to invest in---but I do see the power it holds the younger people. It really seems to help them with their search for identity, which is the main task of adolescence.

Because I live in a home that has been full of teenagers for the last 11 years. Ive been hearing and seeing little bits about Facebook and related things like Instant messaging and email for years. Because I was an at-home Mom our house was frequently the gathering place for a pack of teen-aged boys and interactivity was the word. Our basement rocked to the sounds of teens playing a multi-player video game, hooting and hollering about every heroic conquest. Anyone not playing was on the computer sending email, instant messages and eventually updating their Facebook profiles. What I noticed was the more technology involved the better----soon of all the guys had cell phones too, so texting, picture taking, bizarre ring tones--basically lots of noise---has always been connected to technology in my mind. What impressed me most was that the web of connections must be maintained at all times. The kids always know where everyone else is, and they are highly skilled in organizational planning. My teens can plan all kinds of activities through Facebook--ranging from social gatherings to carpools for soccer. I think they prefer to plan on Facebook--more efficient use of energy!

Both my sons and daughter became involved in performing at some point, and I think that comes in really handy these days because teens seem to spend so much time as the hero of their own story, documenting both everyday events and rites of passage. Facebook helps them get their experiences out there to the audience of the larger world.

By contrast, I noticed while doing my Voicethreads creation how difficult it was for me to record my voice and thoughts---I spent a lot of time rejecting the 'spontaneous me'--revising and cringing in equal measure. Put me in front of real people that I can see and make authentic connections to and I'm comfortable and stimulated by visual and auditory interactions with my audience. But me and the machine---not so much.

My kids, part of the Facebook generation, avidly share images, thoughts and tidbits of information that I would never put out to a large audience. In a strange way I think they are liberated by their lack of inhibition--and this connects to the theme I've returned to every week--there is such an ocean of info out there--who really pays attention to all this stuff? Is it really that different from the gossipping I did with my highschool friends in person and on the phone?

Of course there are some significant differences. Anyone who wants to share personal details on the web needs to be aware of safety issues-- and that kind of information literacy learning needs to begin as soon as a child starts using the computer, both at home and at school. Certainly school administrators and teachers have developed lots of ways to protect their students and the creators of the Web 2.0 applications put tremendous energy into security features, too but cyber-bullying is a real issue. I also wonder about the long term effects of inappropriate Facebook material that is perused by future employers. Time will tell, on that score.