Neuromancer, 19-24

Neuromancer ends with Case and Molly respectively breaking into the Villa Straylight.  Case finally meets the other AI and gets sucked into his all too real world, where he reconnects with a ghost of Linda.  Meanwhile, Molly has been captured by the only awake member of the Tessier-Ashpool family and Riviera has switched sides.  When Case comes to rescue her, 3Jane decides to join them and help unite Wintermute and Neuromancer.  Thanks to Case’s and the Flatline’s skills, they successfully get past the Turing security measures and unite the two AI’s. 

One question I want to pose about the last section of this novel is why isn’t anyone asking themselves if it’s a good idea to be freeing and merging these artificial intelligence units?  I would even settle for considering any possible effects uniting the two might have.  Even after they find out what Wintermute is trying to do, neither Molly or Case questions the consequences such an action inevitably has.  The end result doesn’t even reassure their actions.  When Wintermute returns to Case one last time after he has been merged with Neuromancer, he says “I’m the matrix,” and in response to Case’s question regarding where that gets him he replies “Nowhere.  Everywhere.  I’m the sum total of the works, the whole show” (259).  Personally, that does not sound very reassuring.  Neither does the other AI unit Wintermute claims to have found.  I am really worried about the future of that world with all of those unregulated AI’s running around (purposeless !).  Have they not seen the movies about how bad that can go? 

Neuromancer, 6-9

The section of chapters 6-9 in Gibson’s book I found the most intriguing was the one that talked about the Zionites.  The people on Zion were “workers who’d refused to return, who’d turned their backs on the well and started building” (101).  They live completely separated from technology except for what they require to survive because they believe that technology can only lead to destruction.  Case describes Zion as smelling like “cooked vegetables, humanity, and ganja” (102). 

Why does Case think the Zionites are so strange?   Why would anyone in that future think they were weird?  Because they are so anti-technology.  Everyone in this future world is so wrapped up in technology they can’t even fathom how anyone could live without it, much less why someone would want to.  Most people are either jacked into the matrix or a simstim, and all the youth have some kind of crazy techno-body modification.  The Zionites are an important alternative perspective that Gibson presents in contrast to the majority of the characters he sets up in this world.  They show the reader that it is in fact possible, even in this crazy future world where you can have and be anything you want, that some people see the dangers of living like this.  When Case makes one of the Zionites jack in on his deck, all Aerol will say when Case asks him what he saw is “Babylon” (105).  It is important to raise the question of whether or not living this entwined with technology is okay.

S/R 2 - Neuromancer

William Gibson’s Neuromancer is a novel chiefly about the future and the technology it holds (along with what ethical and philosophical questions technology like that raises).  The story follows Case, a down and out hacker trying to get killed by living the street life, who gets recruited by a team that is attempting one major hack.  The first team member is a girl named Molly who has had many “enhancements” made to her natural body (like razors that shoot out from underneath her fingernails and mirrored lenses that attach directly to her face around her eyes).  Case and Molly form an alliance to figure out just what their secretive boss, Armitage, is up to.  They find out through their side investigation that Armitage is taking his orders from an AI (artificial intelligence) unit named Wintermute.  Eventually, they find out what Wintermute is trying to do: it is one half of an AI that was unlawfully too smart and independent to exist together under the Turing code of law.  Wintermute was built with the burning need to reunite itself with its brother, Neuromancer.  Wintermute is a ROM construct, meaning “read only memory.”  This AI is very intelligent, but it can’t create its own personality and has to communicate through images of other people.  Neuromancer, on the other hand, is a RAM (random access memory) construct, which allows it to have its own personality.  The team begins their adventure by recruiting the next team members, a legendary hacker named Dixie Flatline whose consciousness has been copied onto a ROM disc and Peter Riviera, a man who is able to project perfectly realistic holograms from his mind.  The book culminates in the chapters where they are finally on their real mission: breaking into the Tessier-Ashpool (the company that created and now houses Wintermute) mainframe to set Wintermute free so he can join with Neuromancer.  The mission is a success, they are all paid, and Molly and Case go back to their separate lives.  Wintermute/Neuromancer comes back to Case one more time, though, to tell him that he has now become the matrix.

One of the most interesting points Gibson addresses in Neuromancer is the people he calls the Zionites.  They are people that worked on a space station and refused to come back down when they were finished.  People from Zion believe that technology leads down the path of destruction, aligning it with the ancient city of Babylon.  They spend their time listening to music dubs, smoking pot, and generally taking their time to appreciate life.  The Zionites are an important contrast Gibson makes to the rest of mainstream society in his future world.  No one else he mentions can even think about living without some kind of technology.  The only bits of technology the Zionites use, on the other hand, are the parts of the space station that keep them alive.  The contrast is especially vivid when the main characters visit the Freeside space station.  While the people on Earth have built their new world around technology, incorporating it into their everyday life, the people on Freeside use technology to recreate what life was like before the big technology boom that changed everything.  There isn’t really a lot of nature left on Earth, but on Freeside there is vegetation and evidence of landscaping everywhere.  They even have a fake sky that “looks” sunny and has a “sunset” and “sunrise.”  The people there are as fake as the scenery.  The Zionites might appreciate the appearance of a place like that, but they would never try to recreate that environment on their space station.  They chose to remove themselves so completely from the situation on Earth because they genuinely believe it will lead its inhabitants down the path of Babylon.  This is such an important alternative perspective in this novel, because Gibson presents society at this date as completely extolling the virtues of technology.  The Zionites are the only ones that took a step back and thought what was happening was wrong.  It appears that removing themselves did help them retain something that the rest of society does not have, whether it is a greater appreciation for life, a lack of dependence on superfluous technology, or the camaraderie that looks so rare back on Earth. 

Apps Culture

While searching for an article to do this week’s blog post, I discovered the Pew Internet article on “the rise of apps culture.”  I found it especially intriguing because it went into so much detail regarding the users of cell phones in general as well as users of wireless Internet and apps.  The article discusses the number of (over 18) adults that use apps in great detail in relation to age, gender, race, education, and income.  The number of apps average users have, how often they download apps, and how often they use those apps are also topics explored in this article. 

I think it says a lot about our culture that 35% of adults with cell phones have apps.  As the purpose of cell phones has gone from voice calls to texting to Internet access and beyond, apps have arrived to flesh out the cellular world.  A whole host of new software has arisen that is designed specifically for your mobile phone.

The part of the article that I found the most intriguing was the section discussing how frequently users downloaded apps.  According to the article, the most frequent apps users were not the 18-24 group (29% of this group user their apps multiple times a day) but 25-34 year olds (44%) and those 35 years and older (44%).  The younger apps users were much more likely to say they used their apps for less than half an hour a day.  This was very surprising to me, because I would have expected younger groups to use apps more often than older groups.  Further down in the article, however, it states that 25 and up adults are more likely to use apps to improve what they are currently doing, finding a place to eat, shopping, and at work.  Young adults are more likely to use them while socializing with friends or while they are at school.  Older adults use apps for more practical purposes, while younger adults use them for more recreational or social purposes.  I think this must be why adults use apps more often during the day.

Picture Test

Testing inserting pictures into my blog...

Also testing linking them to a website...

S/R 1 - Convergence Culture

Jenkins begins his novel with an introduction to the concept of “convergence culture” and establishing that there is a major shift occurring in the relationship between producers and consumers.  He continues by discussing reality television and the tensions it creates between these two groups.  First, he discusses the “spoilers” of the show Survivor.  He details both what the process is and uses it as an example of collective intelligence and the changing relationship between the producer and the consumer of media content.  Then he examines American Idol mainly from the viewpoint of the media industry, with a focus on their thoughts and method of changing their relationship with the consumer.  Continuing from there, Jenkins looks at the movie The Matrix as an example of transmedia storytelling.  Jenkins defines transmedia storytelling and shows how it is a product of the redefinition of the relationship between producer and consumer.  He then moves on to discuss how producers deal with their consumers adopting their intellectual property as their own, like how Star Wars fans tinker with George Lucas’ fictional universe to realize their own fantasies.  This section of the novel also shows how fans revitalize older folk culture through new mass culture.  Jenkins then looks at the two struggles surrounding the Harry Potter phenomena.  The first struggle is between the fans, who think they have the right to modify and create content related to Harry Potter, and the studio (Warner Brothers).  The second is the struggle between conservative Christian critics and teachers who want the books in school because they think the books will help kids learn.  He then shifts from popular culture examples to political examples about how convergence culture has affected politics, with a focus on the 2004 presidential election.  In his conclusion, Jenkins returns to his main claim that 1) convergence culture represents a shift in our relationship with the media 2) that shift is reflected in popular culture 3) the skills we gain here can help us in many areas like school, work, and politics.  In the afterward he addresses further how the political process is merging with popular culture by talking about the 2008 election. 

The issue of literacy is something Jenkins brings up a lot in this novel.  It is of particular concern in chapter five in both conflicts surrounding the Harry Potter movies.  In the first case (with the fan writers online), we can see that the issue of literacy is no longer just about being able to read and write.  It now requires that an individual can create and express themselves through other media.  Jenkins also argues that participating in fan fiction improves the other two components of literacy.  This occurs mainly through the writing, because there are many ways that authors get feedback on the sites: through other writers on the site or through systems set up to help critique newer writers and get them on the right track.  The second issue is mostly concerned with students’ ability to read.  Teachers think the Harry Potter books should be allowed in school because they know kids will read them, and anything that gets kids to read is good.  It is also easier for kids to go deeper into the analysis of something if they are interested in it.  I think both pro-Potter sides need to converge: by applying the methods used by online fan fiction communities, teachers can not only improve children’s literacy but allow them to have fun while they do it.  If schools were to model some aspects of learning how to write after fan fiction forums, kids will have some control over what they create, they will have an easier time evaluating their peers’ work, and it gives them a sense of independence in their writing that will make them better writers. 

Downsides to a Digital Democracy

In the last chapter of the novel, Jenkins comments on more recent events that occurred since the book was published, mainly the upcoming 2008 election.  It discusses how politics and cyberspace have continued to interact in new ways, like the CNN/YouTube debate and political parodies, as well as many “downsides to a digital democracy” (290).   I was very interested in this section of the Afterward because I enjoy investigating the negative effects of things that are usually considered largely positive.

Jenkins begins this section by reiterating some themes from this chapter, like the validity of more “informal” forums and participants for political debate and the use of parody as a serious means of political discourse.  He then goes on to say that while the potential is strong for a participatory culture to “serve as a catalyst for revitalizing civic life,” we still fall short of realizing those ideals (290).  The first reason he gives is that an open platform, like YouTube, has no guarantee of diversity.  Sure, in a best-case scenario, everyone is going to work on their own to top what the collective group has come up with.  However, there is highly likely chance that the “mechanisms for user-moderation” obstruct the expression of minority perspectives and hide content that is “unpopular” or “unconventional” from view (290). 

The second reason Jenkins gives for his argument is that the speed with which these videos are put on the Web can undermine both pedagogical and activist goals.  As a result, consumers who are always “looking over their shoulders for the next new thing” are having short and superficial conversations instead of serious political discourse.  In other words, “the user comments posted on YouTube fall far short of Habermasian ideals of the public sphere” (291).  Then Jenkins reproduces a blogger’s parody of the CNN/YouTube debates that associates YouTube with, “mangled syntax, poor spelling, misinformation, and fractured logic” rather than politically self-conscious or an appropriate form of citizen discourse (291). 

The final way in which Jenkins supports his argument is through discussing the often racist, sexist, and xenophobic humor online parodies often embrace.  He states that the inclusion of this kind of humor “further discourages minority participation or conversations across ideological differences” (291).  In doing this (and in a much more explicit way than television ever could), the people that produce the parodies are falling short of the “ethical spectacles” advocated by Duncombe: “A progressive ethical spectacle will be one that is directly democratic, breaks down hierarchies, fosters community, allows for diversity, and engages with reality while asking what new realities might be possible” (292).  Many of the videos on YouTube do the opposite of what Duncombe advocated: they promote traditional authority, they preserve gender and racial hierarchies, they fragment communities, discourage diversity, and “refuse to imagine any kind of social order other than the one which has long dominated American government” (293).

I agree with Jenkins that the current state of affairs falls far short from those idealizations set forth by people like Habermas and Duncombe.  The ease and speed with which people can upload content onto the Internet causes lots of problems similar to the parody of the YouTube comments.  Several of Duncombe’s ethical spectacles might be met on some fronts, but not on others.  Sites like YouTube do allow for diversity, but that could be any degree of diversity.  Most of the content is still going to be controlled by the most dominant social group, no matter what site you’re on.  These sites also engage with reality, but not always in the right ways.  The CNN/YouTube debate comments parody is an example of this: these people are engaging with the real world, but misinformation is common and they are only spreading it.  In order for these sites to meet the goals set forth by Habermas and Duncombe, they must focus their effort on creating a truly diverse community, engage with an accurate reality, and fosters a community by not alienating minorities with racist, sexist, or xenophobic humor.