Interview for Jules.TV
I did an interview for Jules.tv where I talk about some specific strategies for making YouTube videos.
Check it out… you might find some good info in it 
Author: HotForWords
There are 165,345 comments on this site!
Recent Comments
Forum Recent Discussions
- Greatest Potential on FUN PHOTOS & STUFF (627)
- Greatest Potential on Marina on Photoshop : ) (80)
- leoNard on Help FLOWER the seeds of WORD POWER! (8)
- leoNard on TORTURE: more than words? (46)
- Greatest Potential on YT Music and Videos (718)
Great tips, you do everything with much
dedication and you share It, love the website
you aré my favourite [geek]
Hi Alexander,
Good to see you on here as I have seen your tweets.
Marina has already done the origin of the word geek in this great video lesson.
http://www.hotforwords.com/2008/01/15/sexy-geek/
When you click on the link in the upper left called “All Words”, there are 4 links at the top which give you a variety of indexes by which you can locate a previous lesson.
Origino of [barbecue]
Hi Alexander,
Marina did an awesome lesson on BBQ or barbecue in the following lesson which was in the form of a game.
BBQ Game
http://www.hotforwords.com/2008/04/17/bbq-game/
BBQ Answer
http://www.hotforwords.com/2008/04/20/bbq-answer/
Origino of barbeche
I remember the nincompoop episode and I miss the kitchen table chats. The quality of your productions may be better on your end, but my computer can’t keep up – everything is out of sync. It’s like me, RAM is too old and slow.
Ever since you went to Canes, your extra-effort, multiple character videos ceased. Are you too busy? Or, living too high on the hog? (Ooo, baby!)
In the picture of you and a couple friends, it appears your hair color was au naturale. That was nice.
Good article… and also “good to be your own boss!”
soul right
Joel like what was said…? share and care to bare: said the old grey mare…I [DARE] 
she-a boy-again…
Very Interesting a buudy of mine in Vegas was wanting me to make Russian Culture videos for youtube using my character ‘Super Communist’ but I felt some of his ideas would be insulting to the viewer I guess our ideas on funny did not mesh well so we have not pursued that yet. Neverthe less I am your avid fan and the article was most informative again Thank You Dear Teacher
Lady Marina, do you not feel some pressure from YT to fit into a certain type of format? From some of your earlier comments, I get the feeling that YT places certain limits, and they do hinder your creative process? I also wonder about the effects that advertisers have on your content. Perhaps I assumed too much, but i had thought that was where your questions about “selling out” had originated.
I hope this does not sound judgmental. (Hopefully, you know me better than that by now.) I continue to toss around the idea of making some vids, and I am a little conflicted concerning the balance of business and artistic impression. You have done a marvelous job at becoming a “success,” but do you feel satisfied with your artistic contributions? I appreciate your business savvy, and I wish you continued happiness.
You are correct.. the changes at YouTube have influenced the way I make my show.. but it’s still my show.
I think without YouTube.. even if your show was performed on the street, you might adapt it to how people react on the street, changing it here or there to make it more palatable for people. Outside influences will always make a person adapt his or her show.. and what’s nice about the show being entirely yours, you can adapt it the way you want. If my show was on TV, I would have less creative control, I think.
So, I guess it gets into semantics… is anyone’s show ever really 100% his or her show if that person making the show cares about whether people like the show?
of course it is. and no, it does not get into semantics.:P
Hi äläx,
Could you explain why, “it does not get into semantics”?
Here is how I see it.
In Marina’s last sentence, the idea that she is expressing is the concept of “ownership”, in other words, the verb “to own”.
The word, “own” can be used in many situations and presents a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation, meaning subjective cultural and/or emotional coloration.
For example, if I say, “I own my house”, in one sense that is not true if I am making payments to a mortgage company. I am just a custodian, or I only have control over it. Yet, one of the definitions of “own” does say, “to have control over”.
I think the cultural bias for most people is that they think of the word own as meaning 100% unfettered complete control in every possible circumstance.
But, it gets worse. The word “own” is not just a verb, but can also be used as an adjective, an idiom and pronoun.
And so, doesn’t that get into an area of psychological confusion of meaning, which is exactly what Marina amplified when she said; “… ever really 100% his or her show…”
So, why would that not be a problem of semantics?
I saw your other comments and I see that you associated the concept of owning in terms of what other people think. For me, I am divorcing that part of Marina’s sentence as I did not see it the way you see it. I am taking Marina’s two ideas as separate ideas and not dependent on each other. So, I am only referring to the idea of ownership, regardless wether anyone cares about the show or not.
hi karl,
as for “own”. the only connection to semantics is that its sign pattern has different meanings, therefore they’re homographs. that is not very exciting. not even worth mentioning.
so, you have different words “own” which are coincidentally spelled the same way. so what? i don’t really see the problem.
in your posting, you specify different meanings of the verb “to own”. that means that they are different verbs.
and that means that you’re talking about lexis and syntax.
lexis, because you’ll have to have several entries in your mental lexicon. (yes, it’s again about the grammar / lexicon “in your head”.)
syntax, because every verb has a specific argument structure. (nearly) every verb has complements. complements are necessary phrases required and governed by the verb so that the whole structure results in a grammatically correct phrase.
i’ll try to explain that.
take the verb “to put”, as in “karl put the book on the shelf.”
clause constituents: [karl] [put] [the book] [on the shelf].
now, every verb “opens” or has “spaces” that need to be filled by certain elements, i.e. by complements. for “to put” it looks like this:
____ put- ____ ____
“to put” has three logical arguments:
a) the one who puts sth somewhere (x),
b) something that is being put somewhere by s.o. (y),
c) a place where it’s put (z).
so, now our structure looks like this:
x put- y z.
those are just the arguments (“logical characterization”). each one of those arguments has, of course, lexical representations — now we’re talking about surface structure. (“categorial characterization”).
x is the subject. subjects are always noun phrases (in nominative case).
x –> NPnom.
y is an object. it will always be a NP (try to put something else than a noun/pronoun in there, it won’t work).
y –> NP.
z will always be a preposition phrase. it tells you where x put(s) y.
z –> PP.
we now get this structure:
NPnom put- NP PP.
or (simplified)
[VP [NP karl] [V put] [NP the book] [PP on the shelf]].
as mentioned above, these are complements. they need to be there in order for the entire phrase to be grammatically correct (try to leave one out, it won’t work).
so, this is the argument structure of “to put”. you have one argument structure for every single verb. if a verb has different meanings you might want to treat them as different verbs, that means that maybe you’ll have a different argument structure.
Hey äläx,
Thanks for your great reply. Wow! That’s a mouthful. Lots for me to digest. Great information.
In the spirit of enlightenment…
[honest] or [license]….
…LICENTIOUS………EXplore the WoRD and what is given FrEE
licentious is a great word (the word.. not the meaning.. :/). lascivious, too. and libidinous..
i like the words bedraggled, disheveled and writhing for some inexplicable reason..
[licentious] is a great word (the word.. not the meaning…Olga Arefieva – A & B
…Tell me if you get this, thanks
…
The semantic is interesting. If that person cares about whether people like the show or not, then I think she or he is not the sole and unique owner of the show anymore. Just like a corporation that goes public on a stock exchange is not its sole and unique self-owner anymore. But in a classroom-type show, the teacher is the one who shows something. And not the student. So in that case, I think the good teacher cares, and the bad one doesn’t.
“The relation between aesthetic and moral judgments, between the spheres of the beautiful and the good, is close, but the distinction between them is important. One factor of this distinction is that while aesthetic judgments are mainly positive, that is, perception of good, moral judgments are mainly and fundamentally negative, or perceptions of evil.”
– Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás (1863 – 1952)
is your car still your car if you care about whether or not people like the color of it? of course it is.
do airplanes fly? do boats swim? that depends on how far you’re willing to expand the (metaphoric) use of the word “fly”, or “swim” respectively. insignificant questions, though.
besides. caring about something doesn’t even imply changing it because of other people’s opinions, let alone letting other people have a say about its content etc.
As soon as you don’t care enough and don’t transform your car in a four wheeled chameleon changing colour at people’s will and following the aesthetic trends of the moment, then yes, it is yours, but only if it’s fully paid for and you have no creditor left on it. If you still have a single creditor and own money on the car, then it is not 100% yours, independantly of its colour, which becomes totally irrelevant. Even if your creditor owns only 1 cent on it. If you’re not able to pay back that cent, then you may very well end up painting your car the way your creditor likes it.
You don’t need to care about other people to let them express themselves. You just need to be educated.
i was, of course, assuming that the car is fully paid for. no ifs, no buts, no nothing.
even if i had a girlfriend and the bitch would make me change the car’s color every goddamn week, it’s still my car. i own the fucking thing (the car).
is that some random quote?
Hmm… I say the bitch owns the colour of the car, then. And the colour being a characteristic of the car, it’s also part of it, so you are not 100% owner of the car anymore. But of course you still own the way you view the thing, unless the bitch told you repeatitively and consistently (sorta tatooed it inside your brain, if you know what I mean) that this car is still your car and you still own it. In that case, I say the bitch brainwashed you, and she also owns part of your brain, on top of owning part of your car, which is even worse. But we are now quite far away from the semantic.
you’re right, we’re far away from semantics. not that we’ve ever been close.
i don’t believe in colors anyway (there’s no such thing as colors).
Correct. Colors are light prisms. No light, no color
[partners]…the cats are cool
cool are the cats 
life is given and taken 
words are hot when used
My buddy
I followed the links.
Wow has Mr. Boomer gotten to be a big boy.
Enjoyed the interview.
Besides the blah blah stuff you had some interesting insights on passion and longevity.
how about the term [oh, brother]?
[culprit]
how about the phrase [how do you like those apples]?
You’re non-stop girl!!!! Keep it up!
I know. She’s branching out in all directions!
Hi pennsyltucky9, check my post in the Forum regarding smiley issues. Since you are using Safari, I recommend keeping all top level posts on technical issues on a more broad topic than the FireFox topic which is too narrow and is usually not related to FireFox issues anyway.
Here is my post about smileys.
Marina is the best
love learning about video production. people interested will surely want to check out hotforwords forums for more info.
That’s cool.
Just in time, could be.