This book was a swift and painful transition from the dry hilarity of Matthew Ferguson. From light humor with deeper meanings, suddenly we’re reading this book that is theories and insights trying to keep the reader interested with light humor. Which, frankly, it fails at doing. I fell asleep reading this book no less then six times. I cannot even begin to count the amount of times I had to reread a page in order to have what I read soak in at least a little. While I feel like I have a good grasp on what I read, I really can now just outline the 200 some pages I read, explaining with any specific clarity will simply not happen. Therefore, instead of trying to write you an analysis, I am going to respond with a fiction piece which is hopefully more encompassing of the general gist as well as some of the specific points I did dissect and also, happily, more my style.
#
“Thank you for joining us Ms. Fields,” says my professor dryly as I fail at sneaking into my seat unnoticed.
“Er, no problem Professor Bates,” I chirp nervously, my boots squeaking and backpack nearly making me topple over as I maneuver through the tight aisle. I’m dripping from the rain which is causing my fellow students to sneer at me as I try to crunch into the back.
“Life after Television”, he says ominously. The class stares at him blankly, eyes vacant of any form of thought, so after a beat he continues. “Ms. Fields?”
I gulp. “Yes?”
“What would you say is the encompassing idea of this work?”
“Um…” Um Um Um Um Um. “That technology is like…moving past like… cables and junk?”
Some of the previously dead students wake up and snicker. My Bate’s eyes roll back into his skull before returning to eye me warily. “Yes, I suppose we are moving beyond ‘cables and junk’. However, more to the point and central idea- yes, Ms. Maundrell?”
“Well, it’s like he says in the prologue,” says a girl toward the front. Everyone immediately turns to the prologue of the book. A convergence of Corpses, I read. Gross. “Executives all too often seem unaware that their basic technologies are dead.” She says. I stare at her blankly. As she continues. “And then later, they are going to need to evolve into the new technological world.”
“A good point and nice summary,” says Bates. I feel like I understand the words but not the meaning. Like the dots simply won’t connect. Before I can open my mouth to ask however, a boy towards the back speaks up.
“Professor, when was this written?”
I raise my hand anxious to answer something I know. Bates nods at me. “1990” I say, a bit smugly. “He published in 1993 but the original drafts were written up earlier.”
“’Kay,” says the boy slowly. “So, he pretty much predicted devices like the iPhone then?”
A smile plays across Professor Bates lips. Considering his usually stoic demeanor, the smile seems almost warped. “And what makes you say that Mr. Reimers?”
“Well,” says the boy, apparently named Reimers, just as slowly as before. As though he too is trying to puzzle out the logic of the piece. My mind eases some, perhaps I am not the only one who got a bit off track… “In the book he talks about the most common personal computer of the next decade will be a digital cellular phone. He talks about how it will have many features such as being ‘as portable as a watch and as personal as a wallet. They will recognize speech and navigate streets, open the door and start the car, collect the mail and the news and the pay check, connecting to thousands of databases of all kinds…” When he finishes, he looks towards Bates expectantly. We all do. Instead of answer though, he simply continues to smile his deformed little smile.
“Are you saying that the iPhone or typical cellular phone can open the door and start the car?” he finally says.
“No,” says Reimers, annoyance coloring his tone. “But portable, that’s a given. Speech recognition and GPS are also common features. Almost all phones connect to the web now, which might as well be collecting the mail, news, and paycheck. And I mean, connecting to thousands of databases of all kinds…again, that’s the web.”
“So what is your point Mr. Reimers?”
“My point is…so, is this technological collapse he keeps talking about, the death of TV and everything, is that still to come?”
“Or?” says Bates, now looking to the class. Feeling distinctly like I am being both baited and patronized, I raise my hand. “Ms. Fields?”
“Or it has already come,” I say, my voice warbling a bit. I seriously need to get better at talking in groups. “Gilder talks about how we are going to become wireless and unless television goes digital, it’s going to be lost. Well, digital cable is extremely common now, pay per view, broadband. It’s almost rare to find the old realms of dial up and basic television. I mean, the government is even going to be making a national upgrade to cable later this year.”
“Cable or broadband?” asks Bates.
My mind blanks. Damn it. “Cable?”
He smiles again. His smiles are not smiles at all but decidingly sneers. “So, that doesn’t have anything to do with your argument?”
“I think it does,” says Felicity, my token friend in this hell class. “I mean, maybe they are not updating to broadband but, they are updating beyond basic cable which is what Gilder is sorta talking about. The idea that TV is losing touch and that without interaction and a variety of channels, it is going to die.”
“Exactly,” I say, casting a grateful look at Felicity. “So what I’m saying is, he was all about the digital. Computers and networks being good, dial up and television being bad.”
“Perhaps you are oversimplifying?” asks Bates. “What do you as a class think of Ms. Fields argument? Has the technological collapse of TV already happened?”
Zombies again. Bates stares at the group of us and without focusing, they all stare back. I raise my hand again. “Can I just say that I don’t mean the collapse happened, I am not even sure he talked about a collapse. I just mean, we already have the phasing out of the technologies he said were going to die.”
Reimers raises his hand. “Yeah, with that I agree.”
“Professor?” says the same girl toward the front who began the original discussion. “This is unrelated but, I didn’t get the use of the T.S. Elliot poem on page 79? The Rock?”
“What was unclear about the passage?” he asks, seemingly exhausted by our conversation.
“Well. So the poem goes: “Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge; Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” and then he says “One might add: Where is the information we have lost in data?”
“Perhaps that is connecting to his earlier point on the page Ms. Maundrell. Looking still on page 79, he states ‘Computers multiply data; in fact, one study indicated that data would double 19 times between 1990 and 2000. How will anyone be able to find the information needed in this huge haystack? The world is already choking on data’.”
My brain feels slightly like it’s struggling to understand but I can’t imagine why when again, the words seem to click right and the logic is right there in front of me. “Ah…google?” I ask.
Snickers again, although Bates doesn’t respond this time. “Anyone care to comment on the idea of the 2 minute rule of television and Gilder’s views there?”
“Outdated,” says Felicity. “He talks about how TV has to keep things interesting and compressed into two minute news stories so people stay interested which is a mistake because, people aren’t interacting and therefore aren’t interested in the two minute stories.”
“So, what does this mean to newspapers? Chapter 6 please,” says Bates. We all flip to the page. “Someone underline a good passage they would like to share with the class?”
“Page 138,” says Reimers. Pages turn. “The secret of the success of the newspaper, grasped by Roger Fidler, is that it is in practice a personal medium, used very differently by each customer. Newspapers rely on the intelligence of the reader. Although the editor selects and shapes the matter to be delivered, readers choose, peruse, sort, queue, and quaff the news and advertising copy at their own pace and volition.”
“Good,” says Bates. I raise my hand. He nods in approval.
“Gilder also says that newspapers are safe from computers though which, I don’t think I agree with. I mean, they are better off then television is when compared to computers but, at this point in the reading, it seems like most technology is. On page 139,” the rustle of the single page flipping makes me pause. “um, so on 139, he says ‘Computers will soon blow away the broadcast television industry. But computers pose no such threat to newspapers. Indeed, the computer is a perfect complement to the newspaper. It enables the existing news industry to deliver its product in real time. It hugely increases the quantity of information that can be made available, including archives, maps, charts, and other supporting material. It opens the way to upgrading the news with full-screen photographs and videos. While hugely enhancing the richness and timeliness of the news, however, it empowers readers to use the "paper" in the same way they do today -- to browse and select stories and advertisements at their own time and pace.’”
Bates looks at me in confusion. “What part of that don’t you agree with Ms. Fields? That seems to be how things are today.”
“Just that, well, so television is now available on-line which may be it’s saving grace then. Because, that’s how it is evolving to stay safe. So then, when the newspaper is no longer on PAPER, isn’t that the same? Just it’s way of evolving? Which is…the computer then? Not the newspaper?”
“So…” says Bates, but this time I can tell he is urging me forward rather then mocking my thoughts.
“So then…in my opinion, Gilder is making exceptions for the adaptations of other media forms but not television. Which just makes it seem like a biases to prove his point.”
“Excellent opinion,” says Professor Bates. I smile and shrug into my seat. “Who agrees with Ms. Fields?”
The dead eyes stare forward blankly but I couldn’t care less. Cuz me? Yeah. I’m kind of getting it.
No comments:
Post a Comment