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 by 4 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 25. No late responses will be accepted.
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)
13 comments:
Essentially, Klosterman modernizes Postman's Huxleyan fears that the downfall of culture, the enslavement of the human race, is not because the government has forced us into enslavement, but because we willingly submit ourselves to it. Unlike Postman, though, Klosterman states that we (can) acknowledge how we have warped our lives into irrationality. We are willingly dependent on technology and being dependent takes away from us in ways that we choose not to acknowledge—it takes away from our ability to think independently, to not have our realities shaped by simulacra, simulated images. Klosterman's main point, then, is summed up in an imagined conversation with Ted Kaczynski: “he would say something along the lines of 'People who know the truth yet still refuse to accept what they know to be true.'” In this sentence, Klosterman announces that he has failed to accept the truth. He is failing to live in an independent reality by not only acknowledging the truth, but by acting on it, breaking from the simulated reality created, thus becoming a truly independent being. True independence includes the ability to truly thinking for ourselves.
Although, like Klosterman, I would like to say I am not dependent on technology, I cannot. I am wholly dependent on such things as air conditioners in 90 degree heat, my entertainment consists of false images on television and silly stories on the internet. While I am aware that dependence on technology is detrimental, I had never thought of it in terms of independent thoughts, but I understand and agree with Klosterman's idea. Many people see a news story that strikes a chord in them, the war in Syria, for example, and many of those people adopt the opinion of the news anchor. They watch Jon Stewart's program and adopt his liberal point of view, thinking they have done so through independent though without realizing their opinions are merely a regurgitation of Stewart's. And while I do not see myself as a “modern leftist,” which may indicate that I am one, I admit that my memories of images and situations are based on simulacra. They are memories of replicated images and situations from television, created to be replications of real like images and situations. And while I acknowledge that I, like Klosterman, enjoy my dependence on internet entertainment and fail to make an effort to break free.
After reading Chuck Klosterman’s essay entitled “Fail,” I sat here trying to figure out a way to describe what the title meant. Of course, I may not have the exact answer and I could be completey off course with this, but I think some of the last few lines in the essay describe it completely. “My apologies, Ted. Your thirty-five-thousand-word document makes sense to me, but I cannot be saved.” Throughout the essay, Klosterman talks a lot about technology and what it has done to us as individuals and as a society. And while he feels that it has ultimately made us worse and continue doing so, we can’t really change our patterns. Technology is here and regardless of the negative things it is doing to us, we’re all going to continue to use it. Even the people who claim it’s hurting us the most will continue to use it. Ultimately, I feel like that could be described as the perfect “fail,” hence the title of the essay. Another “fail” moment that I think Klosterman would comment on is the fact that all of the people who write about praising or putting down the Internet are doing it for personal reasons. “The only people who think the Internet is a calamity are people whose lives have been hurt by it; the only people who insist the Internet is wonderful are those who need it to give them meaning.” Everyone writing about the Internet and talking about the Internet are in some way or another connected to the Internet, whether it be in a negative or positive way. So, in the end, who can we actually listen to? The unbiased Unabomber?
While I read this essay, I tried to consider my connection to Klosterman and his ideas. At first, I thought I was against what he was saying. In his essay he wrote, “TV takes away our freedom to have whatever we thoughts we want. So do photographs, movies, and the Internet.” I’m an avid TV watcher, love taking photographs, watch movies nearly every weekend, and spend a majority of my time on the Internet, but I still am able to think for myself. As I continued reading, though, Klosterman began to prove me wrong. I realized this when he brought up the scenarios where we have to imagine something specific. It reminded me of a study I once read about where people remembered their vacations through the photographs they had. If an event wasn’t photographed from their childhood vacation, chances are it didn’t really resonate in their memory and therefore they didn’t even remember it had even happened. We remember events by photographs. That’s a scary thing to imagine. What about all the things that aren’t photographed? Aren’t recorded? What happens to those?
As I continued reading, I was still trying to go against what Klosterman was saying. (I honestly have no idea why, though, because I was actually really enjoying myself while reading.) I think I mostly get defensive when people try to say the Internet is hurting us. This is because of the fact that the Internet has done so much for me. If it weren’t for the Internet or social media, I wouldn’t have gotten to go to the set of my favorite TV show. I wouldn’t have been able to grow connections with the cast members of said TV show and the workers at MTV. I wouldn’t have been able to obtain my internship at MTV. Hell – I wouldn’t even have had an internship at MTV considering I was the social media/marketing intern. But then, once again, Klosterman went on to prove me wrong. “The degree to which anyone values the Internet is proportional to how valuable the Internet makes that person,” he wrote. And with that line, I finally admitted defeat. Klosterman is right. I’m trying to defend the Internet and all that it has done because it give me worth; it has ultimately made me who I am and is definitely dictating who I’m going to be.
In the end, though, I’m just like Klosterman. I feel as though almost all of us are. Regardless of if we can see the bad things that are coming with technology, nearly none of us would actually give up the technology we have.
I found “Fail” to be extremely interesting and informative. I like how candid he is in his writing ( “Like so many modern day people, my relationship with technology makes no sense whatsoever”) and how he wasn’t afraid to really say what he meant. What he meant, and what I think is his main goal of writing this piece was, is stated on the first page. As he puts it simply, technology and its effects socially and otherwise have been “detrimental to the human experience”. He goes on to explain this by going into detail about the writing known as the “unabomer manifesto” but what is actually intelligent writing even if it was written by a madman murderer.
He addresses the stigma that goes along with saying anything remotely positive about Kaczynski but then goes on to explain how much the bomber did have to say and how valid some of it really was, and still is today. The entire essay discusses how technology influences our lives so much that it even affects our idea of true freedom. Klosterman mentions the “kind of freedom most people don’t even realize is possible” as opposed to just the feeling of being free. This goes hand in hand with Klosterman’s point that “TV takes away our freedom to have whatever thoughts we want” which is something I had never thought about. If, as he says, we can’t really tell the difference between real and unreal images, then what is there really, other than media and the images it constructs for us? It’s a really scary thought. Klosterman says that “We constantly see things that aren’t there” which makes me want to not touch anything technological ever again because it creeps me out so much, thinking that I do not have the control over my life that I thought I had. He seems to think that we are all just cogs in the system, and that is just too sad of a realization to make in my opinion. I agree with a lot of what he says, but I disagree with his statement that we do not have the freedom to think whatever we want. I think we do have that freedom, we just need to be conscious that we exercise it.
In the end of the essay, Klosterman admits that although he respects the writing of Kaczynski, he is the exact type of person the Unabomber hates. This is because he understands what technology is doing to him and he accepts it, he does not change it, he does not go live in a cabin, he lives in air conditioning and he likes it. I think a lot of us are this way, we can recognize the problem and feel the need to run away to a cabin or a field or a mountain but in the end we stay and don’t create change. Klosterman quotes the Jerry Mander’s book and says that the author had hoped for people to read it and then go out breaking their televisions with sledgehammers, however they didn’t, and we will not do the same with our smartphones.
I believe that our society today is becoming extremely media driven and the majority of the public are becoming dependent on technology on media. For instance, now a days, all someone needs is their phone. It does everything. Along with simple text messaging and phone calls, you can use it for sending emails, creating documents, navigate on roadtrips, and virtually anything else you can think of. Although I try my best not to fall under the category of technology dependent, it does go to a certain extent as I personlly rely on my phone for many things. After reading the essay by Chuck Klosterman I found it interesting about his view towards society and technology. Throughout the essay he talks about the effect technology has on society. He sees technology as an inevitable force and something that will continue to grow, evolve and be apart of our culture no matter what even though he believes that there are negative consequences that come with technology. He thinks that in the end it will make us worse but we will continue to use technology anyway. I think this is what he meant by naming the essay "Fail." As a society as a whole we arent seeing how negative technology addiction is causing us and it is bringing our society down. I think that this believe runs parallel to Postman's main thesis of how society is spiraling downward due to how entertainment and media driven it has become. For the most part I was agreeing with what Klosterman was stating in the essay, especially about how harmful the internet is becoming. Although it is very useful because it is essentially an unlimited resource of information, the way it is used today has become harmful. Target Advertisements by corporations are something I find unethical and along with what was mentioned in class about how websites like Facebook are used to gather information of people for the government. That is what I thought of the essay "Fail" and thoughts about why it was called that.
Klosterman writes about the Unabomber’s disdain for technology as it is recorded in his manifesto. He finds that after reading the manifesto, he is the type person that the Unabomber would hate most. He gains an understanding of how technology costs freedom of individual thought. Technology limits our experience in reality and feeds us a conditional life. In order to reap the comforts of technology, we must abide by the standards of our surrounding civilization. When the quote, “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,” is used, it becomes clear that people live in a very controlled way based on their dependence on technology, which shapes their views of the reality. Reality, as we know it, is controlled from the inside by technology and from the outside by unintentional socialization. This noted, Klosterman continues with his dependence on technology because he only knows the reality it has given him and could never embrace the freedom that the Unabomber craved because technology has such a hypnotic appeal and it has been so embedded in people, that even those conscious of its negative effects on humanity will still choose to be slaves of it.
I struggle with a depersonalization disorder which makes self-perception and association very difficult. This makes it hard for me to live by any self-established code of being and so I find it much easier to live in pre-established ways. I have a fascination with fiction, which modern technology radiates in various forms such as comic books, fictional literature, music and more. I often become aware that my reliance on technology is crippling in a way because it makes it even harder for me to understand that I live in a non-fictional world. When I do crave freedom from technology, I often try to embrace my surroundings which leads me to panic-inducing episodes of self-realization. This makes technological dependence all the more reassuring. The Unabomber would still want to blow off my hands even if I were to read and understand his manifesto. This is why the article is called, “Fail.”
It is unarguable that media and technology have become one of the most significant aspects of modern day society. Chuck Klosterman’s essay “Fail” goes in depth with his ideas and interpretations of how exactly technology affects society. I think one of his main points is in regards to our cultures dependency on technology such as smartphones, tablets, kindles etc. If you think about it, we’ve reached a point where we can’t do anything without our phone and I know I am guilty of this dependency as well. I find myself going into panic mode when my phone dies, thinking ill get lost driving, miss an important phone call or am unable to check my email. In my opinion, I think this is one of the explanations for the title of the essay. Our generation has created technology to do all the work for us, anything we need to know, any person we want to get in contact with is right at our fingertips and if we don’t have access to our technology we will ultimately fail at whatever objectives we wish to achieve. Another point of the essay is that technology will never go away, it will only continue to progress- smart phones getting smarter and the ability to do things on our own will start shriveling away. Klosterman is trying to point out the negative consequences of technology throughout his essay and how the internet has potential to do great things but it seems to be causing more harm than good.
Chuck Klosterman's essay, "Fail" shows the fine line between voicing honest, possible fringe opinions and the stigmas associated with saying those opinions. He starts off by giving the example of someone saying O.J. Simpson had merits as a running back. This would make people confused and angry because of the other legal troubles he had. Klosterman then gives the example that he refers to throughout the essay: Ted Kaczynski, who, on one hand killed three people, but on the other hand he did so to try to get his work out in the public eye, even though he failed to do so.
That is the main point of Klosterman’s essay, the impression the media has on people. Even though Kaczynski was trying to make his work have a lasting impression on the public, sending people bombs did the opposite. People do not take his work seriously. Klosterman argues that internal images about topics are not “unique,” but rather mental pictures seen from television and other media. “It’s because we really can’t differentiate between real and unreal images. We can describe the difference, but we can’t manage it” (219). I think this makes a lot of sense. It relates to Postman’s theory that news seen on television is not real, but rather images of real things. So when we picture our country’s past in our heads, we are actually thinking of what we have seen from the media.
Klosterman has a lot of mixed feelings regarding technology, which I feel similar to. He sees technology as an inevitable force and something that will continue to grow, evolve and be apart of our culture no matter what even though he believes that there are negative consequences that come with technology. That’s what he means when he says ‘Fail’. Even though we would be better without technology, we rely so much on it. I am entirely dependant on my smartphone, and check all of my social media sites, email and updates several times a day. “The degree to which anyone values the Internet is proportional to how valuable the Internet makes that person.” Like Klosterman, I am so tethered to technology, but I hate it at the same time. He says if the Internet spontaneously went black and never returned it would be a positive insurrection for the world, and I agree. But at the same time having less access to information is terrifying for me, I would not want it. He feels the same in a way, saying he “cannot be saved.” I really relate to this struggle.
I believe Chuck Klosterman chose that title because he has acknowledged that he has “failed” Kaczynski, as well as himself. And this is because Klosterman has fallen into exactly what Kaczyski’s interpretation of society and technology has become. Klosterman is well aware of how technology “owns him” but chooses to continue his way of life, which makes him as he describes himself to be a suitable target of Kaczyski’s. He further states, “We do not have the freedom to think whatever we want. We don’t. And until we accept that, it’s useless to think about anything else.” Klosterman is going off, about the impact of the TV and the power it entails, since it has changed the way we think of all images. When Klosterman instructed his readers to imagine those scenarios I didn’t exactly have my own images; I had thoughts that were pre-based off of what I have seen on TV, which he predicted. He explains, “It’s because we really can’t differentiate between real and unreal images.” This also applies to how our creative processes work. For example, “It’s something of a rudimentary loop - people conform to the status quo because the status quo validates the conformity they elected to adopt.” I suppose this can help explain why every girl feels the need to announce that it is appropriate and valid to wear sweaters and boots just because it is the autumn season. As a chick, I am totally guilty of that, therefore I am conforming to the status quo. Klosterman then explains how he feels when communicating on an interpersonal level, “I understand how this feels, too: I always suspect people are saying negative things about me, even if they are being friendly and flattering. But I’m sure I make other people feel this way, too.” My interpretation is that his thought may, as well as many other situations, can be applied to why Professors are consistently disappointed in students for not speaking up in class. I know for a fact I have those same thoughts about my peers, in addition to the feeling of pressure and being evaluated. And I know it is silly, because most of my peers are apathetic and bored, while my most professors are constantly encouraging participation. So as a result Klosterman says, “We are latently enslaved by our own imagination, and have unknowingly constructed a stimulated world.” I don’t plan on moving to the middle-of-now-where Pennsyltucky, consequently I also fail.
I think the main point Chuck Klosterman made in his piece “Fail” is that in modern times, we are constantly failing at the things we believe we are doing. In other words, we are lying to ourselves while believing we are in the position to never be lied to at all. After all, how could we? We have such a steady flow of information and such great understanding of the world around us… in theory. Klosterman of course argues that this same reasoning behind these alleged transparencies are the same reasons this transparency is a farce. We fail at making the connection that the Unabomber made, that the reality which we feel we have such a grasp on is a reality fed to us through technology. We fail at realizing our perception of life is formed by what we see on the television screen, not what is actually happening, because we don’t know what is actually happening, because we spend too much time in front of a television screen. We fail to see that people use this media to express themselves, but then those ideas become the only acceptable ways to think and feel, because if the seemingly majority feels and acts a certain way, it must be the right way. “The Unabomber believes modern people have no idea how they’re supposed to think or feel, so they convince themselves to care about whatever rules the rest of society seems to require,” Klosterman writes, arguing this vicious cycle that creates the illusion of an informative culture with freedom is essentially a fail. Even our inability to see the truth the Unabomber brings to the table, because we are blinded by the media’s complete negative perception of him, is how clear our dependency upon the media’s ability to think for us is.
I can completely relate to this situation involving my relationship with technology. I think we all can, living in our American society, unless you want to be liar and say that you don’t. Klosterman’s point made when he asks the reader to think of a simple scene, like the “old south,” and see where that scene comes from. Does it come from your imagination? Or what we think is our imagination, but upon further review is just a scene from a movie or television show we’ve seen. I’ve had twenty birthdays in my life, but when I think of the scene of a birthday, one of my own doesn’t even pop into my head. Neither does a birthday of a sibling or a parent. Our memories are becoming intertwined with images on screens, and if that isn’t a terrifying indication that we lack a perception of true reality, I don’t know what is.
The article is entitled “Fail” because he explores the idea that technology is supposed to make us more comfortable and aid in the public discourse. Access to the internet has been seen as a tool to make socialization easier. Klosterman believes that the socialization people pursue leads to the loss of individual identity and morals. The need to fit in with society causes people to give up their personality traits, ideas, and moral in order to fit in with the perceived social norm. The increased amount of socialization people experience have shaped the development of ideas. Klosterman claims that people perceive the ideas to be more free than they really are. This maybe because technology evolves faster than we do mentally and socially. This leads to an alienation of the consumers. Much of what we imagine is dictated by the imagery we gain from television media. These were not thoughts I had given much time. The way the author presented these ideas spurred an introspection. I do at times feel overwhelmed by how connected I am with my peers. This must influence my interactions and formulation of ideas. The example of imagery was especially impactful. None of the examples Mander gave I could not paint an original picture in my mind. They were largely dictated by images I have seen in the media.
I think the main point of “Fail” is that we have failed as a species in our interaction with technological developments like the television, Internet, etc. We fail because we are too headstrong in our view of technology—we never step back and question whether its increasing pervasiveness is beneficial or not in the long-term.
I’d like to believe most people would agree that Klosterman is saying our relationship with technology has been a failure. He makes this clear to his reader: “I don’t expect consumers of this book to read ‘Industrial Society and Its Future,’ or even to spend more than two or three minutes scanning it on Wikipedia. I know how this works.” We have become saturated with media and information. Because of this “we have never been less human than we are right now.” If society took a hypothetical step back and questioned the advancing technologies, this loss of humanity might have never happened.
I relate to Klosterman’s technology predicament. I too “love the internet.” Not in the “lusting for the new iPhone” way, but for its ease of access and range of information available literally at my fingertips. Like Klosterman, I too would probably classify as someone Kaczynski hates. I’m trying to get better though. Instead of reading “about Animal Collective over the Internet,” wouldn’t it be 100 times more stimulating to go to one of their live shows? But reading about them online is such an easy way to replace the actual experience of going to a concert and detaching from technology—at least until the show starts and everyone takes out their phones to capture it all on video.
I love the Internet. I also realize how harmful it can be. But I can’t live without it… not now.
The main point of Klosterman’s essay was to point out the fact that the only reason people use technology is because it is easily accessible. If it weren’t so readily available I’m not sure that any of us would use it as much as we do and I totally agree with the point that he makes through out this essay. By titling the essay “fail” I think he means that even though we as humans think we are of our own free will, but we decide to do things that aren’t always in our best interest like sitting on the internet for hours just because it is there. The fail portion of this is that we are living our lives day in and day out with the idea that we are doing what we want, but are just like flies to honey where we are attracted and get sucked in and then stuck.
I think in certain ways I can relate to what he is saying because I find myself thinking that I am resisting the temptations toward technology, but then I pick up something and find myself getting sucked in. I feel that it may almost impossible at this point because technology is everywhere around us and the only way to get completely away from it would be to be in complete isolation with no contact with the outside world as Klosterman stated.
In Klosterman’s essay, the main point that he makes is that, even though he agrees wholeheartedly with the ideas put forth in Kaczynski’s manifesto, he is the exact person that the madman detested. Even though he knows that technology, more specifically mentioned the internet, is not so much an asset to society but is actually one of the strongest detriments to it. As Kaczynski theorizes, we are willing to give up our entire lives for our technology. We may not realize it, but eventually we give up, our time, our labor for the money to afford our technologies and the comforts that they bring. Klosterman titled his essay “Fail” because even though he knows and realizes these facts about technology, he cannot willingly leave them behind. He is too accustomed to luxuries such as air conditioning that he doesn’t care about the fact he gives up everything to have them.
Yes, I can easily relate to his predicament concerning technology and his inability to forsake its comforts. Just in the fact that I am willing to work a full time job over the summer to afford a new car, new computers and phones, or a new video game, I am submitting myself to that same surrender of my life. I am willing to devote all of my time to earn money, which in turn is spent on more technology. So in this sense, I am failing just as Klosterman is, because I realize this fact, but am unwilling to do anything to change it and am happy with my actions.
Post a Comment