What do you think is the main point of Chuck Klosterman's essay, "Fail"? (Or, to put it another way, why is the essay titled "Fail"?) Can you relate to his predicament vis a vis technology? How so? (Or, conversely, why not?)
Please respond no later than midnight, Sun., Feb., 26. No late or superficial responses will be accepted. Further food for thought:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101056168
http://gawker.com/short-film-about-smartphone-overuse-is-smart-poignant-1189811144
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/24/opinion/obeidallah-new-iphone/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoVW62mwSQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qFW4zwXzLs
http://gawker.com/louis-c-k-s-explanation-of-why-he-hates-smartphones-is-1354954625?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. -- James Madison
“When a dog bites a
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
man that is not news,
because it happens so often.
But if a man bites a
dog, that is news.”
- Editor John B. Bogart, New York Sun
About Me
Followers
forthcoming
- "A Newspaper Is a Collection" (poem)
- "News Today" (music video)
- 20th Century Man
- A Walk Back Through a Day's New
- BBC Facebook Parody
- Breaking News
- Bullshit
- Citizen Journalism -- What Is It?
- Civil Rights Movement
- Class Project: Media Parody
- CNN War (music video)
- Colbert versus Keen
- Dead!
- Dirty Laundry (Remix)
- Electronic Book Burning
- F the CC (music video)
- FCCFU
- Future of Book Publishing
- Internet Art!
- Interview With Andrew Keen
- Journalism Back in the Day (short movie)
- Journalism?
- Locus Novus
- Logorama (short film)
- Monoculture
- Murrow Broadcast From London
- Neil Postman on Cyberspace (YouTube)
- New York Times Home Page
- Newsboys
- Newsboys Shooting Craps
- Newsies
- NPR (Your Brain on Computers)
- Penn & Teller on Marketplace of Ideas
- Penn & Teller's FCC
- Perez Hilton
- Postman Comic: Orwell vs Huxley
- Reconstruction of American Journalism
- See It Now
- Story of Electronics
- Story of Stuff
- The Yellow Kid
- Turkel
- Video Game Faces
- Whackamurdoch
- Who Owns the Media?
- Who Owns the Web?
- World of Blogging (music video)
30 comments:
I just read “FAIL” and I am so amazed by Klosterman’s theories and thoughts. I think the way he used Kaczynski’s manifest as an example was extremely relevant. I specifically loved section 2B, the section where he discusses the analogy of having an air conditioner in the summer. By the end of that section, I was nearly screaming at one of my roommates.
I think he has many points in this essay, but I believe the main point is actually one of his own quotes, “I am not free – because I am a slave to my own weakness.” That idea in and of itself is speaking about our addiction to technology and how no mater how we, as a society, may say we hate, our weakness is that we are addicted to this technology. Why the essay is entitled “FAIL” I believe, is that we have failed. Society as a whole has failed. We have failed in the sense of improving our own lives, we have failed in creating actual thoughts for ourselves, we have failed in having a just reason for things we believe to be “true”…
I can relate to his predicament about technology, to use his own words, “It’s the most important aspect of my life that I hate.” If I do not carry my cellphone with me, everyone treats the situation as though the world is coming to an end. If I don’t answer my mom’s phone call the first time she calls me, she has a panic attack and automatically assumes the worst. If I don’t check my phone for a few hours, people think that I am crazy. But I believe that if you are on your cellphones and communicating with other people, at the same time you are with real life people, are you ever really with someone? No.
As great as technology has been for our growth as a whole, it has destroyed us just as much, if not more. Most images we have been exposed to we have seen on a screen somewhere: think of the Grand Canyon. Not many people from the state of New York has ever personally seen the Grand Canyon, yet everyone knows what it looks like. Before the age of technology, if you wanted to know for yourself, you went and saw it. Now, there is almost no need for a person to travel to Arizona to see the beautiful sight. I have been to Arizona and seen that wonder of the world: hiked into it and around it, and watched the sunset over it. But most people feel as if its acceptable to just watch Nik Wallenda walk across it on the Discovery Channel, and now they have seen the Grand Canyon.
I loved reading this essay and I feel as though I am more aware of certain ideas now than ever before.
I want to begin by mentioning that shortly before I started writing this blog post, water dripped from my hair and fell onto my laptop (I just showered), which just completely busted my mouse-tracking pad. I’ve been sitting here for several minutes (probably hours) in panic. It’s safe to say that I’ve grown frustrated and angry since this "traumatic" experience. I’ve also thoroughly described the incident to my roommates, as if I hit my car and broke my leg. Call me crazy because maybe I am crazy. I definitely feel crazy. It just took me five minutes to close a tab and open this website because my mouse wouldn’t let me reach it or let me click on it. Am I crazy?
I’ll admit - this piece of technology has undeniably spoiled me in terms of enabling me to complete tasks quickly and efficiently. Now, what will I do? Write my blog post by hand and mail it to Professor Good in hopes it gets there by Sunday? That’s hilarious.
Klosterman outlines this same premise in "Fail," which basically sums up my entire experience. According to the fifth principle of the manifesto, he says, “People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.” This refers to the revolution of technological machines, which I agree, have fundamentally have taken over our lives, bringing the worst out of us rather than the best without any warning or permission to do so.
In all, I find "Fail" as a relevant source since it explains the reasons for our rather newly developed behaviors like impatience and incoherence. Also, Klosterman’s analogy of comparing the media to a psychedelic drug is alarming for media portrays images that are far from authentic to us. I took his concept seriously and pictured a baseball game in my head, only to picture an image that I’ve encountered on television. It’s depressing, considering I’ve been to tons of baseball games in my life thus far.
'FAIL' by Chuck Klosterman is an essay on the human race is failing to see that, technology is going to be its downfall.
We fail to imagine things without making a reference to our "experience" with television in most cases e.g. when I'm told to think about soccer, the first thing that pops to mind is a game I saw on TV, not a kick-about with my friends. Conversely speaking, if I were to do the same thing with swimming, images of those early training hours throughout my adolescence pop to mind. Perhaps, the fact that I enjoy actually swimming rather than watching it plays a factor. Or simply the moderated approach my parents introduced me to gadgets(I got my first laptop at 18).
The reality is technology has moved from wants to needs. It is in every facet of our life, at work, play, home etc ...
Ted Kaczynski may be a murderer but like Closterman, I find his warnings/ideas on technology in 'Industrial Society and Its Future' hard to ignore. From "creating artificial meaning to our lives" in the pursuit of socialization to not having a clue on how to think or feel, can all be levied to technology.
In Zimbabwe, I feel that the use of technology is still moderated, hence the strong identity and cultural beliefs of its people. But like many developing countries, the demand to catch up to developed countries technological standards, might just see us dig a grave we won't be able to get out of.
Throughout the essay, Chuck Klosterman writes about how technology is bad. He says Technology has a long-term negative impact, it’s the reason we can’t tell the difference between real and unreal images, and how it’s bad for civilization. He also gives excellent reasons to back up his reasoning for everything. I think the essay is called Fail, because in the end Klosterman is still going to use technology. He loves the internet and can’t imagine his life without it. This shows that him, like the rest of society is failing. Even when we learn and know how bad technology can be for us, were still going to use it. I can totally agree with him. I never even realized how bad technology could be until I took this course. All the points Klosterman made, I was agreeing. Everything he said made sense, he broke it down so it was easy to understand. But in the end like him, I’m still going to use it. I can’t imagine my life without it. I’m a computer Science major, I’m going to be using computers all the time. Especially the generation that I live in, it would be really hard to give it up.
The reason that this chapter is called FAIL is because of the failure of society to take a step back and see how technology truly affects society. I found it very interesting how he used Kaczynski as an example for his theoretical views between philosophy and technology. Ff you were to quote the Unabomber and recommend him a positive light but don't immediately defend yourself, people would look at you and think you are crazy. In the same breath, if you were to oppose of technology altogether, people would look at you and think you are crazy, and Klosterman mentions this correlation.
We've mentioned in class the idea of seeing things through screens instead of real-life moments. When Klosterman brought up the Mander/Basketball example, I was completed floored. I never even thought of a ball or even playing the sport myself. I only imagined a birdseye view of a basketball court with stats riddled throughout the bottom.
Also when the passage where Klosterman summarizes the three main points of Kaczynski was very revealing as well. I imagined talking to one of my peers and mentioning these theories and how they would react. And sure enough what I imagined was just as Klosterman predicted; disagreement on the idea of not being able to decipher whats good/bad technology. It appears to me that people simply accept technology without evaluative measure, which is extemely problematic.
I highlighted another point that Klosterman said. "The degree to which anyone values the Internet is proportional to how valuable the Internet makes that person." This is a scary thought for the sole purpose that there are really no bounds on the internet. There is a tremendous amount of ability that almost anyone can access and redefine who they are as a person, or I should say a "real" person. People can create new lives on the internet with almost no consequences.
Another major point that Klosterman presents is the benefits vs. the detriments of technology. Although there are many benefits to technology (medicine, transportation, etc.) that doesn't make up for the loss of humanity we have endured in the process.
Finally, Klosterman ends this essay, perhaps on a satirical standpoint? He summarizes what he believes again, but also mentions that he is helpless and must choose to be pro-technology. "I love the internet," He says. He makes remarks on how the internet is his opposition to confronting reality, and thus he actively chooses to not embrace real life. So, maybe another connotation that comes from this title could be Klosterman's own ability to criticizes technology's affects on society. Although he clearly understands the issues at hand, he still "fails" to change his ways because he has become dependent on technology.
In my own relationship with this topic I struggle in the same vein. I've been interested in the philosophy of technology for a long time. Similar to Klosterman, I do see the detrimental affects that rapid advancement of technology has done to society as a whole. But on the other hand, I like the ability to seek information and become a different person on the web. I can shout out facts about myself that aren't true and no one will contest me on it (well unless someone I know finds me). But this "freedom" is truly to much for me to just give up. It's like a drug that I'm addicted to.
Reading Klosterman's essay, "Fail", I found myself constantly agreeing with his ideologies involving modern technology. Our societies have turned into worlds based soley on media technology and how its hard to function without it.
Klosterman's main point that he argues is that "technology takes away freedom". People have become obsessed with their TVs, mobile devices and computers to the extreme point where everything around them crashes when something goes unpredicted or wrong. Technology is failing us because its become a necessity instead of a privilege; its consuming daily life to the fullest. People of all ages can not leave their homes or start their days without checking in on their favorite social media sites or scrolling through a news article on a preferred online newspaper.
Personally I can relate to Klosterman because I do find it hard to go a few hours without checking my phone. As sad as it sounds, I'm not the only one that suffers from this. The 21st century has turned into a place where its not wrong to feel this way and thats terrifyingly scary to think about.
There were many points throughout FAIL that I found myself nodding my head in agreement to, but perhaps the part that stuck out to me the most was the opening section, 1. There's a paradox. Often as writers we have to write about issues, people, or topics that are considered controversial to the mass majority of people. But we still have to do it.
In this particular instance, having to write about the life of a man who killed people highlights this issue. People who know of Ted Kaczynski know him as a killer. Nothing else matters. So writing about the other aspects of his life, such as the fact that he was a philosopher, simply "confuses people, and then it makes them mad."
Kaczynski was an "enraged hermitic technophobe who lived in the woods" basically blackmailing people into getting what he wanted. The writer of this essay makes connections between this situation and his own way of life, telling how when writing the essay he was on his laptop.
So drawing from both the positive and negative aspects of the ideas in this piece we can conclude that people think of technology as something that we love to hate but inevitably need and rely upon. We rely upon it to the point that we would be lost without it's many features and ways that it makes daily life more convenient. Our society, especially our most recent generations, being born and raised directly in the age of technology, is "FAILing" to realize just what is happening.
I'm aware my ideas in this post are rather scattered but i wanted to touch on a variety of aspects brought to my attention from the essay.
So now I must use technology to write all about how technology is ruining civilization? Right, I mean that’s what I took as the main point. But if not for technology we wouldn’t have this forum to express our ideas on this reading, we would not be turning in our assignments this way. In fact without it, I wouldn’t have even been able to find or read the essay. So, sorry but I do not find technology to be this terribly awful thing. At one point he says “It’s the most important aspect of my life that I hate,” I agree with this statement, technology has become one of the most important aspects of my life and at times I do hate it, but not always. Technology is important and it serves great purpose in many of our lives. Klosterman states what I find to be his main point “Technology is bad for civilization,” and “…we have never been less human than we are right now,” and this is why he thinks we have all failed. That technology has become too prevalent and we all have failed as human beings.
I think looking at technology in such a way belittles all the good it does. He does state that it is helpful for medical purposes and transportation purposes but he merely brushes past it and then goes on in a condescending way to group the medical achievements of technology with being able to send a text message about Michael Jackson. He is looking beyond the fact that technology has improved our lives. He also states that the internet is not improving lives; it in fact is making them worse which I would once again disagree with. If not for the internet I would have had no way to stay in contact with my family while I lived in Ireland for almost a year, nor would I have been able to see my grandfather over skype one last time before he passed. And whether or not you think this was an "authentic" relationship because it was not in person, is not what is important. Getting to see them through a computer screen and getting to hear their voices and tell them I loved them is far better than not contacting them for months at a time. So yes, I do disagree and I do believe the internet is improving our lives.
Additionally, throughout the reading he states that our ideas are not our own because they have been constructed by television, but I argue that was it not the same in the days of only books? I mean our ideas are shaped the same way by books we read as they are by the programs we watch. We cannot thing beyond what has been told to us, and shown to us, but books service the same purpose. They are imposing theories and ideas into are heads that we cannot think beyond. Either way the ideas are not our own whether they are read or spoken.
Throughout Klosterman’s essay he is discussing out addiction to technology, our need to have it on our lives. Before I wrote this post I watched the clip of Louis C.K’s explanation of why he hates smartphones. I believe he captured how our society functions now in one statement, that technology is taking away “our ability to just sit there and be a person.” We are controlled by the technology that exists in our world and that is how we have failed. People have this need to be connected at all times. Louis C.K describes people being on their phones while driving or needing to contact someone when they are sad. In class we spoke about an even more telling example which is people checking their phones if they happen to wake up in the middle of the night, why? What life-changing message is going to be on your phone at 4 a.m.? But that doesn’t stop people from checking. The sad part about all of this is that for most people that are constantly on their phones or checking them at 4 a.m. they don’t even realize it, to them there’s nothing wrong with it. Being connected is to some the single most important thing in their lives and that’s where we’ve failed. Kaczynski wrote once “technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom” and in our society that rings true. I can relate to what Klosterman is saying throughout this essay. I think one of the things he said that really made me was “because I’m not free – because I am a slave to my own weakness – I can no longer imagine life without the internet. I love the internet” its sad but I feel that’s kind of true. We are slaves to technology, although I love those random weeks when I get to be disconnected and not have my phone but envisioning not having a phone for good is hard. Of course technology has its benefits and has allowed our society to grow but it has stunted our growth as humans.
Klosterman writes with a kind of self-mockery that I probably enjoyed reading way too much. It's refreshing, reading something in which the author is not only recognizing his weakness (in this case, for loving this century's digital wave), but also promoting the opposite of his own behavior. He doesn't try to justify the way he feels - he simply admits that he indulges.
I think that's where the title comes from: "FAIL" is a kind of online slang, sort of. It means to fail, yes, but it's also used in a self-reflective way since its semantic development on the internet. Via instant message, for instance, it can be used in the following way: "Totally sent that text to my mom by accident. FAIL." The title is Klosterman mocking himself using the language he admits he indulges in.
I think that Klosterman's aim was to make those who indulge in technology realize its detriment using a controversial figure's philosophy, one that symbolizes how people may also view him for arguing against the influence of technology on society while admitting he still absolutely loves it.
Personally, yes, I totally allocate all of the technological resources available to me, just as Klosterman does. But how can he logically agree with Ted Kaczynki's premise that technology is more powerful than freedom and still go about surfing the Internet (granted, he acknowledges that he hates himself)?
I guess the same way that I can.
I'm required to digitally participate in school. I have friends all over the world that I contact via the Internet instead of pen and paper. I indulge in shows like 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation regularly.
When I was in middle school, I contributed the collective cheer when the teacher wheeled in a television for an in-class movie. Even then, though, everyone knew that the value of the television was that we didn't have to crack open a book or hear the teacher speak. We could be entertained.
It wasn't until high school that I really dedicated myself to my studies, and even then, a movie was cause for celebration. I didn't feel guilt because I was made blind by surrounding technology, thinking I was still technically learning.
Now, in college, that sort of horrifies me, as it does Klosterman and Postman. Postman's got the right idea though. That he recognized schools as the only plausible basis for change is undeniable. We have to stop entertaining and we need to encourage the greatest height of intellectual development that we can if there's any hope for clambering out of this "third great crisis in Western education" by removing all screens from the classroom.
I think the main point of the essay if that we have failed as a society to allow ourselves independence from technology, instead it has become a need and an important one. I completely agree with this essay and felt as if it vocalized every attack on technology in a very well written and honest way. I especially loved the author saying “It's the most important aspect of my life that I hate.” And even the fact that he was typing this on a laptop and fully admitted that he was the type of person that the Unabomber would hate. I think the point about the comfortableness that technology allows us is spot on. We as a culture hate being uncomfortable; whether if we don't have access to our friends or information, or as the author explains we cannot even deal with the real temperature we must use machines to get the temperature to our liking. The Unabomber was interested in a type of freedom that none of us will ever achieve. The fact that he knew all of this about our society while living in a cabin in the woods is amazing to me. We believe all this technology and “knowledge” is leading us to more freedom but instead it is giving us a pseudo freedom, much like the pseudo reality the author discusses. As simple as the concept is, it is absolutely crazy that we can imagine and perfectly picture things that we ourselves have never seen in person. We can Google anything and see most things in the media and we accept these things as real. Another idea I found crazy were the lack of freedom we have when it comes to our own thoughts. We believe we can imagine or think anything we want but we really can only think thoughts that have been fed to us in some way or form. We think and feel things that have been passed down to us or something we see on television, no original thought can exist in a media saturated society. We give up all these freedoms in exchange for a false sense of comfort. But as the author says at the end of his article, we love the internet and we are all slaves to our own weaknesses. I completely related to the authors thoughts in almost every way I could imagine. I make fun of people constantly on their phones and mock people who cannot think originally but I most likely fall into the same category, it is just too depressing for me to admit to myself.
I think that the main point of Chuck Klosterman's essay, "Fail" is pretty much how technology will be the demise of our society, communication, knowledge, etc. I agree with this point because even today we are slaves to our phones, laptops, ipads, and technology is just continuing to grow. Thinking about our society in even 5-10 years from now is a scary thought. Technology is in every factor of our lives, not just work like it used to be. The fact that people are on their cellphones during a restaurant meal with friends/family shows we have failed to separate the two. Technology can be so beneficial if we learned to use it only when necessary and convenient as opposed to at all times of the day. Klosterman talks about how we cannot tell real from unreal images as a result of so much technology exposure. Seeing all of these unreal images all day long makes it hard to see reality. This real vs unreal idea also goes along with how people can now so easily go online and make a whole fake alter ego. They can just recreate themselves through the Internet and redefine themselves completely.
I think we can all relate to Klosterman at one point or another, especially living in this generation. It is almost impossible not to be slaves to technology, especially because even with school these days technology is mandatory. An example is Blackboard, which forces all students to have continual access to computers for mandatory schoolwork, which leads to many students needing laptops of their own. I also feel the need to be checking my phone constantly for text messages, phone calls, emails, and being on the Internet. Even though nothing is that vital where I need to be checking, I still feel the constant need to.
I had to read the essay slowly and it took me a while to comprehend what Klosterman was trying to convey. The point he is trying to make is that technology is basically ruining our lives. He keeps citing books and makes a point that we should have read these pieces of literature. Had we read these books, we might have been saved from the technology that is now taking over our lives. He is also saying that even though technology and the Internet has taken over us, we can't help but love it.
"The author seems to have written this book with the hope that everyone in America would read it, agree with all its points, and literally destroy their television sets with sledgehammers. This did not happen."
The title of the essay is "Fail" because we all failed. The author of that book failed to get his point across to everybody, we failed to notice his point and technology and the Internet is failing at making our lives better.
I agree with what Klosterman is saying. Technology and the Internet have taken over me. At this point, it's inevitable not to use the Internet, we use it at work, at school, on our free time etc. I watched Louis C.K.'s video on why he hates smartphones and he's absolutely right! He talks about how we don't have face to face conversations, even when we're face to face. We are always on our phones. He mentions that we have that "forever empty" hole inside of us. So we fill that void with our phones. We are constantly checking it to see if somebody is paying attention to us; whether through a call, text or email.
Chuck Klosterman is a smart guy. I’ve read some of his work previously and I was one of those people who believed he was into himself, and I probably would have never said anything positive about him (besides the fact that his writing is enticing). But after reading “Fail,” I believe he is more human and less self-absorbed than I once believed. I think his main point (as well as the reason for calling this essay “Fail”) is that we all look at the benefits of technology and assume that it is beneficial for society at first. But then we become aware of the damage that this increase in technology does to our society and realize that the short-term benefits don’t outweigh the long-term struggles. Even when we are aware of this, we can’t help but use the Internet (and other developments of technology) simply because we like it. This is the reason for the “Fail” as humans that are a part of a society. It damages us but we still won’t stop using it.
I am 100% in the same predicament as Klosterman, which I think is what led to my change in opinion on him. I can relate to him. It is a fact that our society would be a better place without things like the Internet (despite what anyone might say otherwise). But this fact doesn’t stop me from keeping my cell phone on me at all times. I love technology like Klosterman admits he does at the end of his essay. What I think makes me different than most people is the fact that I can go out with friends and not look at my cell phone once. And I can make other conscious decisions to stay away from technology if I really wanted to.
I just wanted to note that I enjoyed Klosterman using the Unabomber as an example because I was already aware of the Unabomber’s manifesto and felt at points throughout this year that his points strongly related to many of the topics that come up in class. Most people would push the Unabomber to the side because of what he did, but Klosterman correctly uses him as an example of someone who lived based on his opinions.
Klosterman believes in the theories expounded upon in "Industrial Society and It's Future," yet, as both a "modern liberal" and one who is addicted to technology, he fails to implement the theories in his own life. He is one of those that "know the truth, yet still refuse to accept what they know to be true." Hense the name of the essay.
I can completely relate to Klosterman relating to the Unabomber. Briefly, I believe that modern technology is turning us into machines in a pretty literal way. We are starting to think and act like machines (because almost all modern technology fails to correctly answer question 7 of "Questioning Technology").
I believe that the very recent emergence and exponential increase in Autism disorders is a direct result of this. Nay, I believe it IS this: people with autism spectrum disorder are (psychologically) part machine.
I believe that the soul is dependant on the natural world for survival, whether it be a lovely forest or the natural body itself.
I believe that we live in an overly-logical society. Why is this a bad thing? Because you know who's really fuckin good at logic? Machines.
Pretty soon, we'll all be soulless, passionless and autistic, in other words.
Obviously, I feel rather passionately about this. But I'm still writing on a computer. I feel that, although I am as set on the aforementioned ideas as much as someone as mercurial as me CAN be set on a set of ideas, I am too addicted to society to diverge.
It's not necessarily the technology I'm addicted to---I feel I'm less dependant than most people around me. It's SOCIETY and the people who inhabit it I'm addicted to. And we all know what direction THAT'S moving in.
This relates back to another point that Kaczynski made: that "modern people are so obsessed with socialization that they deceive themselves about everything," to use Klosterman's paraphrasing. Essentially, I am going with the flow of society, too weak and addicted to resist.
And then I read things like the argument made by Gerry Mander, that we are not as free as we think we are because most of our mental imagery is not our own. And I want to get out.
But I know I never will.
On a lighter note, I really enjoyed the Louis CK bit. He's my favorite comedian to watch on television.
I believe the main point of Klosterman’s essay is that technology plays a dominant role in our lives more than ever and it has a negative long- term impact, only benefitting us in the short-term moments. He states, “It’s the most important aspect of my life that I hate.” This statement stuck with me as it represents how I feel about much of technology. It’s grown to be a large part of my life so now I love it too, but at the same time I hate all of it and wish it would go away. Like he ends his essay with, he cannot be saved. I don’t think I can be either, or anyone else for the matter. What are we going to do, go live in cabins without technology? That clearly won’t happen.
I think the reason the essay is called “Fail,” is because the whole idea of technology is sort of one big failure on society. Yes, he points out the benefits such as medicine and transportation, but he also argues that the negative impact technology has on society outweighs the good. Our blindness to the real world with television has taken away freedom’s we did not recognize we even had. I share the same fears about technology as Klosterman. He discusses how one couldn’t differentiate in their memories between what is real and what they saw. This accurate thought is frightening. In addition, this inability to make distinctions refers back to the idea of the pseudo environment. We are overlapping our lives between living in reality, and the pseudo reality. We no longer can tell the difference between what is real, and what we have seen on the screen. I’m afraid one day it will just be about the pseudo environment. This thought reminds me of the film, “The Matrix.” The reality of that movie is basically what is taking place in society right now. We are blinded by the technology as it takes over our entire lives, thoughts, and freedoms. The worst part, nobody can stop it and many can’t recognize it.
This essay by Klosterman definitely shines light on our need for technology. We are failing because we can't let go of technology. Even though we are aware that technology is affecting us in a negative way. Klosterman states "I believe all technology has a positive short term effect and a negative long-term impact..." This is very true while technology is advancing we are still trying to catch up. We become so dependent on the internet and for technology, even if its just for distraction.
He states a lot of valid points that I didn't view in such a perspective. Like when Klosterman states "It's because we really can't differentiate between real and unreal images. We can describe the difference, but we can't manage it". We are so accustomed to just view a situation even if we didn't experience it personally because we are so used to viewing it on screen. He also asked "Is it any wonder that people feel paradoxically alienated by he mechanical devices they love?" My response to that is, yes it is. I think that because we definitely are! We even admit that we are so attached to this virtual reality, this technology that makes things easier. That's why we are failing because we haven't stopped, and we're definitely not going to.
Klosterman's essay, "FAIL," focuses on how technology is directly contributing to the demise of our society. He believes that while technology has a clear positive impact on everyday life, its negative long-term effects are far worse, and often harder to notice. We, as a society, are "failing" to notice how the technology we use everyday is affecting us. We all have these committed relationships with technology that we cannot get out of, and no matter what we learn about how these relationships have a negative impact on us, at the end of the day, we are not going to escape the clutch technology has around each and every one of us.
I completely agree with Klosterman that the overuse of technology is bad for us. Unfortunately, I also agree with the idea that it is very unlikely that anything will change in the near future. Nothing anyone can do at this point will prevent most people from being attached to their mobile devices, laptops and televisions. These forms of technology rule over us, and takes away our freedom. Smart phones are the biggest culprit, but really all forms of technology are slowly destroying us.
I, like many others, are very guilty of occasionally being too attached to my cell phone and the internet. A cell phone is a convenient, helpful tool that, in some ways is very necessary, but in others is a complete waste of our time and brain function. Additionally, the internet is a way to communicate with others, a means of finding information easily and an aid in performing certain tasks, but is also a way to waste endless amounts of time. You see it everyday; people are becoming increasingly attached to technology. Still, most people, myself included, are nowhere near capable of letting go and freeing ourselves from the grips of technology.
After reading this article, I really have a whole new outlook on how I use technology. It really made me see how consumed as a society we are with everything that makes life easier! At first I thought that the article was just on the fact that we are consumed with a life of television, but it went deeper into things like photos and computers. We as a society, sit here on the computer everyday and either go on facebook or twitter, or we check our emails as if we are going to miss something so important. We can not disconnect from the screens and really figure out what is reality and what is not real. I really liked the example in the article where he talked about imagining a basketball game. I have played basketball for 10 year and have been to over 15 basketball games since I was about 14. When I sat there and imagined what a basketball game looked like, I imagined watching the Knicks playing on television! WHATTTT! Is that even possible! How was that my image of a basketball game! Oh right...because we associate everything in life with an image not the real thing. We are so focused on what happens on the screen because it is "true entertainment". It is what we grow up watching to occupy our time. How many of us were put infront of a television to occupy our time? Many of us im sure, and when were bored, we either go on the computer or watch tv, or sit on our phones. Its so sad to think that people would rather capture a moment in a picture instead of experiencing it with there own 2 eyes. I cant sit here and act like I am not one of those people, because I am, but it just makes me think of what is left to come for the future generations. Everyone thought that Klosterman was crazy, and a murderer for what he did too all those people when really he was just trying to warn us about what was yet to come.
I believe that the reason why the article is called "fail" is because people FAIL to realize what Klosterman was really trying to do. And because of this we are failing as a society to figure out the difference between real and unreal. There is no way that people are ever going to be able to detach from the screens that consume there lives because people are so afraid of missing something and being left out that they will always be attached to the technology that makes it easier to access information. Or even what makes it easier for them to be entertained longer.
I find it so interesting that technology poses to be productive and rational, but at a deeper examination it has caused a lot damage to our public; Kaczynski, on the other hand, is someone who damaged the public, but at a deeper examination had rational and productive ideas (separate from his killings). I think that ironic relationship is something that Klosterman considered when he named the essay Fail. Throughout his essay he provides us with examples of how technology is failing us but we allow it to happen. He ties all of his points to failing because everything that was created ends up dong the opposite of what it is meant for.
He says television should bring us more intellectual stimuli, but we see that it has ended up doing the opposite in our TV culture. Internet technology should spread necessary information, but we see how it has dampened our discourse instead. I think he was great at relating to his audience because a lot of us our in similar positions where we know the effects of our technology consumption but we insist on using it because it has become such an intrinsic part of our life. We can even see this in our class. Although we are analyzing and criticizing the use of technology and media we are using technology and media in the class itself.
After reading Klosterman's essay, I was tempted to delete my all social media accounts and ditch my iPhone so I could experience a real human life that wasn't in a warped pseudo-environment. But of course, my desire to disappear from the technology-mediated social world quickly evaporated when my mind was flooded by doubts and fears of what would happen to my social life...Without a phone or a Facebook profile or an Instagram and so on, would I disappear too? I suppose my reaction to the thought of completely disconnecting myself from technology can be summed up by Kaczynkski's quote at the end of section 2B
"Technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom,"
I feel that now that technology has interwoven with our social constructs, it has transformed its presence in our lives from a beneficial luxury, to an idealogical life-necessity, like the Earth's going to fall off it's axis without it. Not only has technology become something we believe we can't live without in our minds, but it has also completely changed the way we think...and by that I mean we have been unconsciously stripped of our freedom to have whatever thoughts we want. We can't even differentiate the images in our heads between reality and a pixelated image we once saw. Maybe we can, but what's even scarier is...who actually even cares? With that being said, this is why I think Klosterman's essay is titled "FAIL."
Not only has technology failed us, but we have failed ourselves. We have failed at reality.
As of this, point in the world we are living in what is called the Digital Age (or Era). Everything from is all about technology and why we, the human kind, use it so much. But, with our iPhones, tablets, smartphones, T.V.'s, computers, you name it! We are on them 24/7! Not all of us, but at least most do it. But because we are so many times, most cases everyone uses their device for everything. For most people it's like their device is their world, or reality. It's like the video we saw in class when the girl was with everyone she spends time with but they are all on their digital device. Again, they are using it like this is their world. I almost want to say a "second life" but, I don't think it's that deep. Maybe. But it's also with video games, PC games, social network sites! People are on it that much that, you can almost ask "what's going on in the out here?" Then forget it… Looking at the title "FAIL", that is what I think about. Klosterman is basically talking about himself about technology and how this is so important. But, all throughout that, how can we be so stuck in to something like this? What is reality at this point in life? We'll just have to wait and see...
Klosterman’s essay is about how technology has a negative impact on society because of how dependent people are nowadays to their technology.
I think the essay is called “Fail” because even though Klosterman realizes that technology is having a negative impact on his life, ultimately he is still going to be using technology. He believes that technology is failing society because of how people can’t go long periods of time without checking their phone or other devices.
I can relate to this predicament because I am constantly checking my phone. Prior to class I am always reading the latest tweets, and once class ends I am immediately catching up on the tweets that I missed during the class period. The majority of the time I’m not reading anything that’s that import, but I still like reading what I missed. I think it just comes down to that the information nowadays is so accessible, so why would I not read it?
"Fail" is titled as such because of Klosterman's knowledge of his own weakness (reliance on technology) and refusal to change, thus failing to be truly autonomous - Kaczynski's idea of actual freedom and not perceived freedom we deceive ourselves with. It is a failure of civilization to have become "enslaved by its ingenuity" and rationalize it instead of acting on it. Instead we rather be content in a virtual reality than free and unchained from thought limiters in the real world.
It's easy to relate with Klosterman's plight. Without the use of technology in the professional and personal world I would feel invalid or incomplete - like I could not accomplish as much without it. I've lived with this thought for a long time and I've come to terms with it just as Klosterman has. Both he and I would according to Kaczynski be the worst kind of people. Trying to decipher the real (my own) memories and thoughts from the fake (absorbed through media) is a daunting and anxiety filled endeavor. It has one questioning one's own identity, whether it is an original construct or something assimilated from the outside. Not a bright topic, to be sure.
Chuck Klosterman’s essay entitled Fail is a true testament to the fundamental issues regarding the emergence of new technologies, and the battles fought against them throughout history. Klosterman’s use of the Unabomber’s manifesto as the basis of this scholarly essay illustrates the timelessness of the age-old argument about if change is good. Klosterman detaches the focus of this article from Ted Kaczynski’s bombing campaign, and instead tries to illustrate Kaczynski’s perspective on the infiltration of technology into everyday life, and how it is still apparent today.
Kaczynski sees the industrial revolution as a disaster to humanity. He generalizes a class of individual that meet his standards of the “modern leftist”. He sees this class of individual as weak, subordinate and persuadable. He claims it is the autonomy of this population that weakens humanity. Although the title of this class would suggest a political bias, it in fact is an attack upon many other attributes this specific type of person may display. He characterizes this type of individual as possessing low self esteem, experiencing depressive tendencies, and so forth. He claims this person is so distracted by the need for socialization that they loose sight of the fundamental problems in their lives. Klosterman explains Kaczynski believes that roles, emotions, goals, and lives are directed by a socially excepted system, which suggests to people what should make them happy.
Klosterman cautiously agrees with Kaczynski on some points and looks to other sources to reiterate points with more prestigious quoting’s from other works. However it is Klosterman who comes out and says that he himself is guilty of the autonomy the Unabomber so strongly preaches against. He himself like many other Americans would easily fall into the category of the modern leftist, which Kaczynski warns against. I believe the title FAIL is a wise choice for the name of such an essay. It strongly illustrates the points Kaczynski and others have made against technology, and how these writers may have experienced troubles adjusting to the changing technology/web world, however Klosterman openly admits to being guilty of all the acts and and enjoying it immensely. He says he himself, sees his own guilty behavior, however he cannot be saved, for he does not want to be saved. So Fail, I believe is a great title for an essay that agrees with so many opposing viewpoints while admitting the futility of trying to fight the social systems of life.
I find the titles of this essay to be absolutely perfect, if not entirely humorous. It brings me back to my HS days when someone would mess up, and then That Guy would murmur, "Fail." This is basically what Klosterman does: he spends the entire essay building a pretty fantastic argument against technology, and then admits at the end that as good as the argument he and Unabomber lay out, it still won't make a difference.
What he argues is that because of our cultures growing reliance on visual entertainment via TV and the internet, we are sacrificing our cultural background, our history in general, in favor out figments. I don't think entertaining figments i s abad thing always--in fact they can be used to raise important societal issues, but it's often taken to the point of excess. Instead of experiencing things for ourselves, we watch it on a screen. Instead of trying to become established and well off, we watch others bathe in their own success and the wonder why not us? (Because we glue our asses to seats and eyes to screens.)
Another part of the argument, I believe, is that because human beings only live for--what?--100 years if we're really lucky? The decision we make are extremely short sighted and selfish. Legislatures, and even everyday citizens act on the maxim that they won't have to deal with the long term repercussions. But where does that leave us as a race? Doomed, as Klosterman says.
This essay, in addition to being strangely humorous and morbid, was extremely enlightening. And like most of our discussions in class, I will move forward as a more mindful consumer of media. On a final note though, I think it's worth pointing out that to make this serious point, Klosterman somewhat relies on being funny and entertaining audiences. It brings us back to postman.
I really enjoyed reading the essay “Fail” by Klosterman. I believe he makes very valid points throughout his writings. I believe the main idea that Klosterman is trying to make is that our media technology, especially the internet have fail us in a big way and has mad our nation somewhat a bunch of failures. He really breaks down how we as people in a democracy driven culture rely too much on media in a bad way. We pretty much in vision out thoughts by in visioning them through what we have previously seen on T.V. Although he compares these thoughts primarily on Ted Kaczynski, whom was a mass murderer trying to get his word out; I believe he does it the right way.
I can definitely relate to this predicament about how technology is having negative affects on humanity. I can see a dehumanization process going on with many of my peers due to social networking. Instead of people actually talking face to face or even talking on the phone, they instead rely on facebook to get their messages across. Another example is how full of crap the news is everyday. As I watch the news while writing this one of the main stories is about how you should drink a glass of wine because its “National Drink Wine Day.” I find this to be completely dehumanizing and making us as humans stupider and stupider.
Although I do agree with the points that Klosterman makes, I do believe that the Internet can be used in beneficial ways. If used correctly it can be used as a tool to make us become more intelligent and better enable us to express ourselves creatively. Although this may be so we must be introduced to the ways of how we can benefit from it because as of right now I believe humanity is using it in a very wrong way.
Mariah Brown
Chuck Klosterman’s Essay “Fail” confirmed a lot of my thoughts on how I feel about media in society. Klusterman makes an extremely valid argument as to why and how technology has a negative impact on our society. People are not thinking critically about their news consumption. In section 2A Klusterman states “People conform to the status quo because the status quo validates the conformity they elected to adopt.” This statement was beautifully put. People are not thinking critically about their thoughts or actions, they are unsure of how to think or feel in a society that requires their devotion and interaction with media. People are engulfed in the social aspects of life that they are taken away from their true selves. I believe this essay is titled “Fail” because people and society, generally speaking, has failed to think critically about how impactful technology is. Something that really stuck out to me that Klusterman writes in section 3 is “ TV takes away our freedom to have whatever thoughts we want.” This is true for a lot of forms of media, people can not differentiate the real from the fake. I am even guilty of this in some instances. I am very reliable on my phone as a mode of communication. I at one point could not discern what were real depictions of reality or just a fallacy. As I separated myself from social media and digital media as an information resource, I was able to think clearer and be more self determined. Also, It was interesting to see Klusterman make sense out of Unabomber’s doings.
Post a Comment