All the Way Through

When I began reading House of Danger, I was eager to choose how I wanted the story to go, however, after dying five minutes in I found myself frustrated with the process. In order to “fix” the problem I tried again, but died even quicker. After repeating this a number of times, I realized that my slightly OCD nature was kicking in, and I ended up reading all of the possible stories. This book was written to allow the readers to choose their own adventure, so why did I feel the need to read all of the stories in order to feel like I captured what the author was intending?

As we discussed in class the audience of this book is children, and as you read that becomes very clear. As a child reading this story, I would imagine being able to choose from the two option at each fork in the road is very empowering. Knowing this, I find it interesting and almost saddening that as a teenager or even an adult we loose that feeling of power and instead feel the need to read the novel all the way through, as we have grown up doing. If I had stopped after reading the original story I picked I would have felt like I was missing out on the purpose of the novel. Instead of appreciating that I picked one of the novel’s twenty different ending, I felt a habitual need to read them all so that I could say I read the book. This shows how not yet having the mentality of always reading a book from start to finish, top to bottom, and all the way through allows children to appreciate novels for their content. While reading the many different ending I knew that I had no genuine purpose for my actions, however, nonetheless, I continued until I had read them all. Why is it that we feel like we are “breaking the rules” if we read a story in a non-typical way? It is the case that we, as superiors to children, have something to learn from them?

Why I Let Myself Be Manipulated

This post is going to make me sound really stupid. I'm very susceptible to advertising, okay? I've admitted it, I've accepted it, and I actually kind of like it.

Example: In high school, I worked at the mall, and during my break I would head to Starbucks to blow an hour's worth of wages on the Frappuccino of the day and a stale pastry. One day I decided to end this madness and buy a Coke at the dollar store. But right next to the normal Cokes were these incredibly cool, old-timey, made-out-of-aluminum-but-shaped-like-a-bottle vintage can things! Obviously, I needed one. I mean, come on, it's the perfect marriage of retro and sleek, of old-school sensibility and new-school style! I snatched one out of the cooler, happily paid for it, and headed back to my store.

Coworker: "What is that?"
Me: "A Coke! Isn't it cool?!"
Coworker: "…you realize that's probably half the size of a normal can but costs the same, right?"
Me: "But…it's in a bottle-can!"

Yeah, okay, so The Man's ploy worked on me. But I really like that bottle-can! It's at home on my desk right now, cleaned out and filled with tissue paper flowers. That's more than anyone else can say about all their Coke cans that ended up in the recycling bin. Does it really matter that I was manipulated into buying it if it made me happy? (Now we're back to Cat's Cradle.)

In addition, I'm the proud owner of numerous infomercial products, including Flex Seal (it's liquid rubber in a can!) and Fushigi (the magic gravity ball!). I love (good) commercials, and I'm not ashamed of it.

One of my current favorites:

No matter what your opinion of the advertising industry, you have to admit that's a great ad! It has a touching story, swift pacing, and (in my opinion) some nice cinematography. Regardless of its intentions, it does everything that a TV episode should do, all in under ninety seconds. I think that's a pretty amazing feat. Honestly, it really doesn't bother me that this commercial was designed to sell tablets, and I don't think enjoying this stuff makes me a materialistic drone. I buy what I like, I watch what I like, and I don't really care if it's what The Man intended. Either way, it makes me happy.

Choices in Interactions

          Trying to be hyper-aware of my daily life and behavior is extremely difficult.  It is easy to think about why I participate in certain bigger decisions because there is a concrete reason with noticeable consequences for not doing it.  For example, why I go to swim practice—it’s fun and I want to get faster.  Or why I put on my huge puffy jacket—I don’t want to freeze.  On the other hand, paying attention to the actions that are seemingly insignificant is almost impossible.  I am not used to thinking about why I choose pencil over pen, this shirt over that shirt, this cubicle or the next.  It makes me question whether those are really conscious choices.  I doubt it is random, but then again I don’t think about it as I make my choice—is it possible to choose subconsciously?  Is there such thing as a subconscious choice or does that contradict the very meaning of the word “choice”?

I applied this idea to my interactions with other people and whether I really make conscious choices regarding the interactions.  For example, the moment we see someone’s expression or hear his or her tone of voice, we are immediately manipulated into acting a certain way.  When I can tell someone is having a rough time, I ask if everything is okay, maybe give him or her a hug.  I choose to do this instead of being insensitively positive or ignoring them.  But do I actually choose?  I think that it is more that I have been taught to make this choice—that I know this is the choice I am supposed to make.  Furthermore, I cannot control whether or not I make the snap judgment when I first see them, thus forcing the reaction.

            These judgments inevitably lead to impressions, which are also manipulative.  Not only can we not help forming impressions, but we are also concerned with how others view us, and this concern has a power over us.  We are manipulated into acting a certain way based on what we want these impressions to be.  If we are manipulated, it is no longer an unbiased choice.  This ties back to what was mentioned in class about who has ultimate power.  In interactions, every individual holds influence over the other, and because of this, no individual has the power to make a true choice for himself.

iphones...iphones Everywhere

            I mean seriously, who doesn’t have one? Whoever you are, I’m proud of you. You haven’t fallen victim to the trap yet, the trap of ultimate convenience. You can text your friends, you can play games, and you can do everything else every other smart phone in the world can do…but better. Yes, the iphone is the simple device that changed the world. But did it really?

            It isn’t the first device to play music, it isn’t the first device to have email and web capabilities, it isn’t the first touch screen mobile device, and it isn’t even the first phone to combine all of these in one. Blackberry had all those bases covered years before the iphone came out. Yet, the very first iphone commercial (link below) raves about email, web, music and phone capabilities, and people lined up around the block in front of Apple stores across the country to get it. It was never about the phone itself, it was about Apple. Everywhere I turn, I run into Apple. They have manipulated the public into viewing their products as status symbols, and I myself have fallen victim: I am writing this blog post on my macbook while listening to music on itunes and checking my iphone. I guess I’m a true Apple fanboy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr-ZfoE4

            Steve Jobs wasn’t an innovator, he was a brand builder, and it all started with computers. I do find Apple software to be easier to use, but Macantosh computers are significantly less powerful than most PCs, and they hold a small percentage of the computer software market (after the release of the ipad, they lead in worldwide PC units sold at about 20% of the market). However, by releasing PC compatable software, like itunes, released in 2001, Apple was able to grab hold of consumers. By the release of the iphone, the ipod was practically the only personal music device on the market. They had successfully marketed their products as “cool.” Back in middle school, it was weird if you had some off-brand music player. The ipod was the only way to go. So in eighth grade I made the first step towards popularity: I bought my first ipod.

            Although I didn’t get my iphone until about a year ago, I have to admit that I have always wanted one. They are flashy and exclusive. Their commercials often involve popular movies, such as Pirates of the Carribean, and social media, all with a pure white background. There is nothing else but the iphone. That’s not to mention the fact that you can purchase them exclusively at Apple stores staffed by one thousand blue-shirted employees just waiting to show you how cool and pure all their products are. When I bought my phone I fell right into the trap. All of my friends had one, and it really is impossible to walk into an Apple store and not even think about dropping at least $200. I’m generally a pretty thrifty person, but how was I supposed to be cool in college if I didn’t have an iphone?

            Apple has manipulated its way to a status symbol. They now dominate the electronics market at upper income levels, which is blatantly obvious at a place like Hamilton College, where by my count, Macbooks outnumber PCs. At this point, they could stop running commercials, and people would still flock to Apple stores for each new release. Sure, the iphone scores lower than a plethora of other smart phones on Consumer Reports, but performance is beside the point. Apple’s success is based solely on its brand and how they have manipulated the public into believing that their products are superior.

Sources: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/september/electronics-computers/smart-phones/overview/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/07/apple-still-leads-worldwide-pc-market-but-lenovo-gaining-ground

Want a Screaming Goat? ...Buy Doritos!

Today, when we were asked to consider how we interact with things and people around us, and how we are influenced and manipulated by others, I first thought of how many advertisements have used effective techniques to not only convince me to buy their products, but to also share their advertisements with other people. Some of the funniest videos shared today are advertisements like these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qy8v1ghy38

oops apparently this link no longer works. Here are the individual ads: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY4L1ihRkaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI4elilUj8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_eXdpr8zKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AVN-mI2DPg

These advertisements attract large audiences not because the advertisements provide extensive amounts of information and portray accurate representations of the products, but instead, because they target a specific audience and know how to manipulate them. In the first advertisement, as unrealistic as it is, I think it is extremely funny and I am very encouraged to watch it and share it. I mean, who doesn’t love the screaming goat?!. While this add tells us nothing about the product being advertised (Doritos), we have now associated Doritos with screaming goats. Oh look how that worked out. In the second advertisement, this comedic approach continues with an additional musical component. This draws the audience in and then they use very creative ways to communicate that M&Ms are tasty and useful for baking etc etc. In the 4^th advertisement, the sketchers company uses great exaggeration techniques and word play to trick us into believing that buying a pair of sketchers will improve our athletic performance. By hinting that sketchers make us run faster, some people will think that this is true. But think about it…. If you’re slow, you’re slow- that’s not because you wear Nike or Converse- its just because you’re slow. In the 6^th advertisement, nothing in the advertisement actually convinces me to buy the car- there is no substantial information to prove the quality of the car. However, in keeping with the comedy and cuteness factor, more and more people will be inclined to watch this ad. Similarly, each of the other advertisements coheres to one or all of these techniques in order to broaden their audience and get the word out about their product.

While these are only a few basic examples of how we are manipulated into believing things, I think it is a great place to start. All throughout life, other people, objects, and sometimes even you can trick you into believing something or conforming to some reality. One major example that we have discussed in class, is that of the college experience it self. Throughout our lives, we are bombarded with people and situations that enforce the importance of going to college for the sole purpose of “it helps you get a better job” or “it’s the only way to be successful”. While college does increase your chances of getting jobs, it is not to say that it is the only way to be successful. Because our family members and friends and gone to college or support the idea of college, they have worked through methods to persuade us that college is the way to go. Not only do people do this, but also the idea of society on a whole. When watching a movie or television show or reading a book, it is often an important detail as to where the characters have gone to college, what they studied etc. For example, in the movie “21 and Over” (as stupid as it is), it showed that the friend who dropped out of college now holds a low level job and is looked down upon by his friends, while the friend attending college and pursuing medicine is praised and is seen to be ‘going places’. This happens quite often where the character that has dropped out of college or doesn’t go to college is portrayed as a ‘joke’.

This is just one example of how we are largely manipulated by other people and the media. 

sI(lent)

In class today we talked about the deconstruction of words and how specific spacing, punctuation, capitalization, etc. can elucidate different meanings and interpretations of words. I started thinking about these extra-semantic devices and how, by virtue of being extra-semantic, they cannot be verbalized--there's no way to pronounce a parenthesis in the middle of a word or a capitalization on the last letter. Even the "pronunciation" of a space is just a pause, it is the absence of sound and words that give the space its meaning--sound familiar? When I realized this I thought immediately of Friday: just like the mute Friday, the spaces, punctuation, and all the things that are used to deconstruct words are effectually silent.

So when you look at a phrase like "media(TED) artiFACT," you derive meaning from the silent mechanisms that drive you to different word associations and interpretations. And because these silent mechanisms can come together in so many distinct combinations ("MEdiated (art)Ifact," "(medi)ATEd art(if)ACT," etc.), then there are near limitless interpretations of a simple two-word phrase.

This same idea of silence attributing meaning can be found even in an average sentence--as you read this post, the words make sense because there are spaces and punctuation that guide you to recognize words, establish a rhythm, and find where a thought begins and ends. Although you don't say these things aloud when you read the sentence, spaces, punctuation, and capitalization all play an important part in imbuing the sentence with meaning. ifasentencelookedlikethisthenderivingmeaningfromitwouldbemuchharder, right? Avoiding that kind of near-nonsensical writing is why spaces and punctuation can be found in almost every literary work--in a very literal sense, these silent devices actually do connect all stories and it is their very silence that makes the meaning of a text accessible.

House of Danger (whole book)

As I regard the shimmering cover of R.A. Montgomery's House of Danger, I wonder what the best way to approach reading the "whole book" is. Can I get away with reading only one of the possible 20 endings, and claim that as the reality I have chosen, the only one I will accept? After all, the first page warns me: "Do not read this book straight through from beginning to end!" Maybe I am being manipulated by that disclaimer, but I've been down the road of Choose Your Own Adventure before and I know that the book will not make much sense if I try to read it cover to cover. I decide to flip through to the good part: pictures. Ghosts, giant eggs, aliens... I wonder if there is a way to cheat and read backward, to ensure that I survive the journey.
These alternate realities put me in mind of a labyrinth. Unfortunately, no matter which path I choose the end result is the same: I'm still laying in bed, no richer, no dead-er, and not a different species than when I started reading. And though I get to choose which page I flip to next, the choices are limited. I'm not writing my own story, just picking from a drop-down list of possibilities. Of course, you could say that the same is true about life. Our decisions are all influenced and exist within context. Even if I was writing my own adventure, what I wrote would be influenced by my past experiences and things I'd read. It couldn't ever be completely new.
Aura is a novel about the past coming into the present, about history and present existing simultaneously. Aura and Felipe are doomed to act out a pre-written script, on into eternity. But in the same way that the novel's second-person narration tells the reader exactly where they have been and where they are going, House of Danger, despite the way it is advertised, gives us very little choice at all.