Laptop Open: Notes

Notes:

Ø  Dark humor vs. Silliness

o   Several of the times that it may have seemed like silliness, it was really just Alex flirting.

o   So more dark humor really—satire—to draw attention to the real problem

Ø  Monopolies

o   Combining all the big companies shows how Lindsley really doesn’t like big businesses at all

Ø  Criticism of Chemistry? Or science as a whole?

o   I don’t think so….

o   More of a “Just because we can doesn’t mean we should” type of thing

Ø  Free Will

o   In “Just Do It” is there any free will?

§  Not really—you can try to resist the craving, but it is just futile in the end

o   Are advertisements today similar?

§  Yes, but we still have free will

§  Advertisements today entice but do not force

Lindsley is trying to draw attention to the fact that we are at risk of letting big businesses control us

Group E Blog Post

Final post from me but basically I want to end with the note that in this world, it is a free for all and whoever hits first wins. I was reminded of the Winklevi twins from the Social Network and their idea that although they didn't perfect or initiate the idea of a massive network first, it was their idea and as a result they should win. Similarly, in this case if you want something you can instantly claim it because you can manipulate the emotions and actions of others without hesitation or much of any effort. The only real control that this society could now hold would be placing the controlling stimulus in the hands of select law-enforcement officials as well as anyone else they see suited. As a result, the corporation effectively takes over mankind by controlling all emotion, action and who can manipulate the emotion and action.

Group E Blog Post

I want to elaborate on something a couple people mentioned earlier about the addiction and not having any control over it. The way this story is told is a "wag of the finger" towards modern societies various addictions and cheap thrills. Take nicotine, the most legal of substances to get addicted to. Granted, there is no need to use it but because of the abusers, the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry thrives. The same applies to fast food. Because people eat and become addicted to the "comfort food" that fast food is, this addiction grows (literally) and makes people need the food more than they would like to admit. This further applies to everything from attention with the advent of social media and mass mobile communication as well as stimulation from sources like video games, movies, etc. Why else do people get bored so easily? Either they need a source of attention or they need some way to be stimulated artificially. The excitement creates a hormonal flux of adrenaline and dopamine that the body cannot replicate in a "resting" state and we become addicted. More than anything, this story is saying the world we fear is the world we live in. Granted, not everyone is carrying around a pistol to get others to control themselves but next time a child misbehaves, bribe them with a Snickers or McDonalds and see the results. Same stuff, but it looks a whole lot prettier to us.

Group E Blog Post

Referring back to what Naveen was saying earlier about the Google posting, this isn't the first time that they have gotten in trouble for something like this. Note how when you open an email in Gmail, the advertisements at the side somehow correlate to what is in the email and somehow add up to something semi-useful. This was taken under fire because the Google code reads your email and then finds the appropriate advertisement, custom advertisements based on your interests and needs if you will. Eventually Google weaseled out of this by saying, "Hey, it's not an infringement of privacy since it is a machine reading and not tracking whatever you have and not a human being." Since no human beings were involved, the emotion and energy cannot be captured and as a result Google claims that it is more of an algorithm finding what you want. Similarly, in the story, the mega-corporations get away with the darts since they create the craving but do not directly influence the victim to buy the goods. As a result, everyone is an abuser of something at their own will.

Blog Post Group E

I also agree with forest & josh that this is one of the scarier dystopian stories because there is already technology out that could make Lindsley’s dystopia possible. Nicotine patches help reduced craving for cigarettes but if it sometime like is possible then a product could easily made to increase craving for cigarettes. Cigarettes themselves increase cravings for people every time they smoke it. Companies are making money for both cigarettes and nicotine patches. I found it funny that each patch is almost twice as expensive as a single cigarette because in the story people are willing to pay twice as much to make the cravings go away. I also found it funny that CraveTech recalled all their darts because studies shown them to trigger problems in small amount of people. This I think is better than real life because most companies just put a warning label on their products instead of recalling. Lindsley’s dystopia might already be happening in real life but it might be too subtle for us to notice. Even if we do notice, it’s hard to change because technology is advancing faster than policies related to them. The ending to Lindsley’s story is very much possible. With all the research on the brain, If a company invest a huge sum of money, a company might be able to create a product that affects human feelings and affections towards another directly.

Blog Post Group E

I think the story is an actual scenario that could happen if we let big cooperation have their way. Google on March first is going to change its privacy policy. With its changes, google will be able to store your browsing history and use it to show ads related to your history. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9111417/Google-privacy-overhaul-unlawful-say-regulators.html

Blog Post Group E

I think Josh and Forrest make a good point about how although this story seems unrealistic, aspects of it are actually occurring in our society right now.  Companies are learning about us through our actions on the internet.  Also, I don’t remember where it was, but I remember finding a site that could estimate your age and gender based off of the sites you’ve recently visited.

Blog Post Group E

I agree with Josh. Advertisements are already everywhere we look, inciting us with their products--Lindsley just takes this to the extreme. I also found it disconcerting how Mr. Avery says, "It's open season on consumers," as if consumers are a game (like deer) that should be hunted down. It shows that the big corporations do not view consumers as people, simply as something from which they can make a profit, and these corporations are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish this.

Blog Post Group E

The world Lindsley creates is absolutely incredible - one where corporations can literally shoot you with a craving to sell their product. As fantastic as it may sound, the scary thing is that it already kind of exist. As we discuss what makes the story "scary" is that it's an allegory to current advertising practices. Sure, companies cannot cause anyone to want something with the push of a button, or so we think, but industries still have the power of advertising, which has come a long, long way in the past few years. Facebook and Google have become a form of CraveTech almost, since they know us so well due to the information we give them. These sites can select ads and possibly promote subliminal messaging to sell a product to us. This is the scary part - the reality of the story. Forrest mentions the tightening of the screw concept; perhaps the screw has been placed and it's slowly tightening, and the first sign of this is the powerful marketing tools that we, as a nation focused around capitalism, have produced. In the story, Mr. Avery mentions the Supreme Court lightening up on the allowable presence of the despised snipers. Here's an example of the tightening process - snipers are introduced but then the government regulates their existence until they become almost part of the norm, and then slowly lightens up until they can freely interact with society. It is a lot easier to mount a resistance to a sudden change, but if people start becoming used to the presence of snipers, then they will be less likely to rebel since they are getting used to it. It's also scary, and realistic, how it seems like there is a product for everything - Monroe mentions that he can buy some pills for the bloating that he is suffering after eating the fries that he bought. The term "buy" comes up so often in the story, and it comes up so often in our own lives too. In the end, the story seems so scary because it is so similar to ours; we could even achieve such a society with a slight increase in technology and a lack of resistance from society. Lindsley obviously supports that we think for ourselves and do not become over-reliant on big business, which will surely take over our lives if we give it the chance.

Blog Post Group E

We talked about the scariness of the mind control when used like it was in the story, but I feel like the author is trying to make us question the possibility of something like this actually happening. The notion that things could change to where they were at the beginning of the story seems completely impossible. But at the same time, the story makes it seem like it was a gradual process or a "tightening of the screw" as was mentioned in a past poem, making it all the more plausible. I suppose what truly makes this story so scary is that it is the outer limit of the dystopian worlds that we can imagine our own society reaching. It's based so much in things we encounter regularly and accept, but simply taken one step further.

Blog Post Group E

The manipulative nature of Tom, the CEO, further emphasizes how the people in the society are helpless compared to the larger company, CraveTech.  Alex and Sandra, who work for an underground group that wants to free people from “the tyranny of corporate chemical dependence” , are convinced that they are outsmarting the company, but the company actually knows about their plan all along.  Even though Tom seems “dangerously oblivious”, he is actually extremely aware of everything that is going on.  His “dangerously oblivious” nature works against Alex and Sandra because it is dangerous for them to just assume that he is completely oblivious to his surroundings. At the end of the story, the CEO shows his ability to manipulate by first drugging Alex, and then asking her to marry him.  He basically forces her response by using the chemical to make her do exactly what he wants, just like the company will soon be able to do to control the rest of the society.

Blog Post Group E

Tying into what Bethany said, I thought the merged company names were hilarious as well. They made it feel like there was even less of a connection between these massive corporations and people. I think that dissociation was another big thing in the story. Nearly every time they mentioned the head of CraveTech (her fake boyfriend/ future husband) they discussed how oblivious he was. But at the end it turned out he knew everything and already had plans to expand both his industry and profits. This entire idea is very relevant to us now with targeted online ads based on our browsing history and interests. We all like to think that these large impersonal corporations know nothing about us but in fact they have a lot of information on us. In many ways Lindsley tries to make this idea just as scary as the ability of others to control our desires and ultimately our actions.

Blog Post Group E

I also liked how Lindsley combined several of today's large companies into one big company in her story. It reflects the trend that we are seeing now of companies merging and buying each other out. It hints of a future where competition is scarce because instead of having several companies compete, there are going to just be a few huge companies monopolizing everything, which will cause prices to rise.

Blog Post Group E

I agree that this story is definitely intense. No one really has control of his or her own emotions or feelings. All human rights are stripped away because people aren't allowed to make their own choices--they just do whatever they were injected with makes them do. In a lot of dystopian stories I have read, love is what drives people to fight against the system, but in "Just Do It," that isn't even a possibility because love is just another fabricated feeling. Nothing is genuine. People aren't allowed to be themselves, so how can they have the motivation to change anything? I was also really disturbed by the last image the story left us with--of Alex shooting her son with an injection to make him get out of bed. At the beginning of the story, people are just being injected with things to make them crave food and other products, but now they are being injected with things that can pretty much control how people act completely. Having a mother shot her child with anything just seems crazy to me, and I feel that they really shows how far from sane the world has become in "Just Do It."

Blog Post Group E

I agree with Forrest about this being the scariest story that we have read so far.  In all of the other stories, the others in the society are unpredictable and unable to be controlled, but each person is still in control of their own actions.  However, in this story, the people are not able to control their own actions, or even their own thoughts.  I feel that in the other stories, having power over themselves gave the characters the strength to survive in the dystopian societies.  In “Just Do It”, though, the characters are powerless because anyone with a special chemical can make them do what they want.  It seems like all hope is lost because they cannot control anything in their own lives.

Blog Post Group E

I thought this was both the funniest and scariest of all the dystopian stories we have read so far. The idea of not having control of your own thoughts and actions always seems to be at the peak of a dystopian society, but I feel like this one takes it a step further. It reminded me a lot of this: http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/
What did you guys think?

Dead Voice

So I lost my voice so I'm just going to put the main topics up here with what I had to say:

Acorn vs old community: To Ben's comment and Luke's as well. The group chose to live in acorn but that will not erase all conflict. The unfortunate nature of humans will eventually lead to internal conflict whether large or unimportant. Doing the same thing over and over will not yield different results. Touching a hot stove over and over will not make it cold. So that shows how Acorn will follow up into the old community. Furthermore, their experiences will not necessarily save them. They are starting a community from scratch and on top of that they are trying to do what has already been done. The only difference is the unity of the community and the thing with that is that the old community was focused on their survival as well and if anything their fear was a reason to be more paranoid than Acorn's so called experience.

There will come soft rain: The tone of this is calm and slightly nonchalant. It makes the fact that even if the human race eradicates itself, then it doesn't really matter. There is a sense of insignificance. The rhetorical devices such as alliteration, repetition and semi-rhyme just make the message all the easier to take no matter how strong it is. She is explicitly saying that we do not matter. For the first time we are taking nature's perspective and it hurts since it is true.The satire she uses is harsh too. If anything it is more like a Dr. Seuss classic. No matter what, you cannot take it too seriously. In the beginning but by the end there is some really strong messages like in the Lorax and so forth.

Zeena's Paintings: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS444US444&q=thomas+cole's+course+of+empire&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=673&bih=646&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=_7JLT_-EEcGCtgfP55TvAg

Josh's Auchwitz then and Now: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58595000/jpg/_58595296_1wp1_edite1.jpg

Harrison's Pripyat: http://www.personal.psu.edu/adg5036/blogs/adam_glusczyk/2009/04/10/Pripyat.jpg

Humans versus Nature: Humans are also a main part of the food chain. Losing us will create an imbalance which will kill other species as a result.

 

The State of Black Science Fiction 2012

Yesterday at The State of Black Science Fiction 2012, the panel began by reading a story out loud.  I missed the very beginning, but it was about a dystopian society set in Atlanta.  There was a recurring interactive portion when a panelist asked the audience "Do you see?", and the audience responded "Yes, I see."  After they finished reading the story, they discussed if they considered their writing to be "speculative fiction", "sic-fi", or "science fiction".  I did not know that there was that big of a difference between the categories, but apparently there is.  The term "speculative fiction" was coined by Robert Heinlein, the author of Stranger in a Strange Land, a Tolkein fantasy epic knockoff.  I learned that originally, the New York Times was not supposed to include fantasy or science fiction books in their issues.  Speculative fiction is a larger category which encompasses science fiction and fantasy.

Group D: The Nig in Me

A little off of what Vishnu touched on was the aspect that the virus ended up being the demise of the white man's majority... The last line of the story is "The world had started over". I was interested as to where this illusion came from. It is possible that Mosley could be referring to the theory that the Caucasian race actually were the decedents of colored people from the loss of melanin in the skin. The laymen term for this theory is  "Out of Africa". Could it be that he is referencing this evolutionary theory? What do you all think?  
From Luke's suggestion i think that it is possible that Mosley could be noting our society's constant battle between evolution/science versus tradition. Evolution points to the white race being decedents of an originally totally black human race. This would make them the more "established" people group. However due to oppression, tradition has taught us that the white man is "higher" than the black man. What we fail to really understand is that we are all truly decedents of the blacks thus making us all equal. Is evolution more or less important than tradition has shaped us over time?
Something to note to Tommy's post is that the story was published in 2001. I think it is important to note that this short story was not written during the civil rights movement (as i had initially assumed). The collection of short stories by Mosley were all complied into a book called Futureland. I think it is important to note that the racism and discrimination found in this novel is a note on the current plight of the African Americans in our own generation. Mosley is noting that even though most people do not consider this decade apart of the civil rights movement, we probably need to do just that. We need to push harder for equality or it could be the downfall of everyone in this nation.

Group D: The Nig in Me, response

Both Vishnu and Luke brought up the point that this new dystopian society is highly business oriented, to the point where corporations literally own everything. People do not own any of their possessions, they simply lease them. This seems to indicate an unstable lifestyle that is consistent with the high rates of unemployment cycles, which the main characters are constantly stressing about. Also, nations are viewed as giant corporations, like MacroCode Russia and the Luxembourg business-state. This concept just emphasizes the prominence of big business in this futuristic society.

Group D: The Nig in Me

                In “The Nig in Me”, Mosley addresses the major issue of racism but also manages to criticize other aspects of society. The racist mentality of the people in this story can be seen on many different scales. Harold, the black protagonist, is even subjected to racism from his white best friend, Jamey, who refers to black people as “nigs”. However, the friendly relationship between the two is not interrupted by Jamey’s background as a white male. Despite regulations and laws set in place to prevent acts or gestures of racism, white people still carried notions of superiority when comparing themselves to minority races in general. This is evident in the scene when Harold is leaving Yasmine after she died and lady in the elevator mentions that the white folk get more attention from the nurses and city service members. Mosley is directly criticizing the imbalance in medical attention based on social class or status in our society by exaggerating it in the story. The “uppers”, as they are called, are given the best health provisions, such as the “Life Plan”. The most extreme form of racism in this story is the direct attempt of the International Socialist Party to remove the race of blacks entirely from the world through genetic bio warfare. This issue is straight forward and obvious, with no gray areas. Thus, Harold and all other black people in the story are facing a multitude of adversity based solely on their race.

Group D: The Nig in Me

There's a lot to analyze in this story, but regarding what Vishnu said, I think the way this future society regards race, that is, institutionally discouraging racism while it's still rampant among individuals, is a reflection of our own society (the story was written in 2001, so I believe it can be regarded as modern for most purposes) Everything about the future world as presented in the story seems to have been created by taking current trends, like the increasing influence of business in politics and daily life, and extrapolating them to their logical conclusion. Therefore, it can be taken as a criticism of and a warning to modern society.

With that in mind, I think it'd be useful for our discussion to identify every aspect of our society that Mosley is criticizing. If no one does this, I'll do it in my next post.