The Shallows pp. 58-143

The Deepening Page

If I wanted a detailed account on the history of written communication I would have read a book about it, Carr. I found myself skimming and generally not caring about what the author had to say until the last two pages of this chapter. It was like he took an aderall while reading a wikipedia page about written text. The last couple pages were interesting though, when Carr discussed how books changed the way in which we think and argue. I thought that was interesting and valid to the overall theme of the book, however the rest of it seemed like a large lead up to a point that could have been made in less pages.

A Digression

It was really interesting how even in 1952, the inventor of the Audion realized the extent to which his invention would change the world. It shows brilliant foresight and an understanding of the way in which technology would develop. I wonder if inventors now have a distinct vision of the future?

A Medium of the Most General Nature

One thing I'm noticing about this chapter is that Carr's criticisms of web-based text reading (ability to be searchable, ability to move towards citations) were some of the very things that he lauded as progression when discussing the change in format from scrolls and parchment to books. Are we really losing anything in the adoption of web-based technologies? Or is it advancement, just as the movement towards books was? I'm going to keep this in mind while I continue to read.

He does have a point when talking about how easily distracted we get by all of the software available on our computers, but is it really different from the things happening around us while we read? I think the two are definitely comprable.

Does the "unbundling" of media really have an effect on the viewer? I personally am very annoyed when companies put up small clips of videos on hulu or youtube. It just makes me yearn for the actual program even more. I rarely only watch a clip of a program, or only listen to a hook of a song.

The Very Image of a Book

I'm all for kindles, but I really like the feeling of a book in my hand. However I do honestly believe that books are a failing medium. E-readers are so much more convenient, lightweight and versatile than a single book. When I'm traveling, I would much rather be carrying a half pound e-reader than 20 lbs of textbooks in my bag.

Cell phone novels? Give me a break. The Japanese are known for their weird fads that fail to be adopted anywhere else in the world. There's a whole website devoted to weird japanese trends. (http://www.wtfjapanseriously.com/)

The ability of authors to convey their messages in narrative form appeals to educated readers. We have not been getting dumber throughout time, rather the opposite is true. People would much rather get an articulate description of thoughts and ideas rather than the spark notes. (This however was not true of me in my highschool english classes!)

One point in this chapter stood out to me though: wil the adoption of e-readers and marketplaces have an effect on the publishing industry that online marketplaces had for the music industry? How is the publishing industry going to stop the pirating of books? Will average writers be able to pay a nominal fee in order to have their book placed on the marketpace? And will this result in an overall decrease in the quality of work? Now that is a scary thought to me. Current publishing practices ensure that only the best authors are published. I don't want to read some shit by an amateur.

The Juggler's Brain

I look forward to discussing this in class. I feel as if any activity will result in a change in the neurological activity of a persons brain. Is the effect of the internet intrinsically bad for humanity?

The Death of Counterculture

I really wanted to talk about this in class today but the opportunity never arose.

Recently, while using stumbleupon, I came across an article that really interested me. It was about the modern "hipster" movement, a self described counterculture that went against all things mainstream. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html

There are some really valid points raised in the article, namely that through endless photography of themselves and the events they attend, hipsters are making there very culture even more easy to dissect and reproduce by corporations. Even though hipsters as a whole are decidedly anti-corporate and mass production (believing that true "coolness" can never be sold), they allow themselves to be analyzed and taken advantage of through their own narcissism. Brands like American Apparel and others hire "coolness" monitors, whose job it is to peruse photo blogs and pick up on trends that are happening within the hipster "subculture". Such trends are then incorporated into style designs, and sold to the hipsters.

While such things may have happend to counter-culture movements of the past (punk, hippies etc.), I doubt that marketers were able to use the media in such a way to take advantage of a counterculture and make it borderline mainstream in the way that we see today. The success of a counterculture movement is the ability to rally support of individuals who feel that the current "mainstream" culture does not work for them. But what happens when counterculture is instantaneously separated from any political or social activism and sold through fashion and music outlets? The movement becomes devoid of any intrinsic meaning, and is rendered useless, a causality of hyper capitalism.

Social Media

One sentence in "The Viral Me" stood out to me.

"People engage in [social media], I think, for affirmation."

No truer words have ever been spoken. I believe that the basis for the popularity of social media lies in it's ability to harness and make public people's opinions of you. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, they all have a "comment" feature which allows other users to post what they thought about any particular comment, picture or witty Tweet. I honestly believe that without this features, social media would be far less popular (at least with the younger generations).

When I was in middle school, Myspace was super popular. People would upload pictures of themselves, and then make everyone know about it via a "status update". In most places, people were often ASKED to comment about the picture. Although I didn't know it at the time, it was probably the most brutal display of shallow narcissism that I have ever experienced. Although as we have aged, the begging for attention has become more opaque, it is still present. Whenever people post a funny status on facebook or twitter, really what they are looking for is people to comment on it in order to affirm their own hilarity. Same goes for people who take pictures of themselves (or of artsy BS) and then upload it; they hope that people will post positive comments and affirm their own beauty/artistic creativity.

DailyBooth.com (which I just went on) is an even more blatant example of this techno-narcissim. It doesn't even ask people to input any data besides a picture. That's all the website is: uploading pictures of yourself.

What the hell!

Big Scary Google

Yesterday Tim, Ryan, Nat and I presented on Google. Doing some research on Google made me realize the extent to which this corporation rules the internet. Now I realize "rules" is a very extreme word to use, but I feel in the context of the argument it fits. Although they are by no means the hegemonic entity of the internet, it would seem that they are moving in that direction. The expansion that google has gone through in the past 11 years is unheard of in my generation, and even more so in the scope of internet companies. Google began as a simple search engine, but now has many more arms to it's repertoire.

I believe that it seeks further expansion, and if what the CEO of google recently said, and the corporation does have a "300 year plan" then I don't think there is much argument against that fact. Why should an internet company expand into the production of cars, cell phones, wind turbines and genetics?