The Sims Social

One of my favourite discoveries this week: The Sims Social. Most of us are aware of The Sims as a pretty harmless interactive PC game. The user creates imaginary relationships between a set of make-believe characters in whatever environment they choose to create for them. But The Sims Social takes it one step further..

'The Sims Social lets you hook up with Facebook friends and invite their sims around to your virtual pad. If the sims like one another, they'll date and can even end up getting on very well indeed. If they don't get on, they'll become enemies, sneaking into one another's homes, nicking food and kicking over trash cans.' (www.theguardian.co.uk)

Hmm..social media gone crazy? Sounds fantastic for those of us who don't like to communicate with real people (or for those who blog mindlessly into the ether uhum), but I believe this game could cause quite a stir. Facebook is known for it's ability to get people into trouble - be it tagged pictures, comments, etc etc. So I sense a few jealous tendencies may pop to the surface should someone's sim fancy another person's sim. The computer-generated relationships are broadcast on your Facebook walls, allowing everyone to see what you've been up to in your virtual relationship! This is hard-hitting stuff.

But am I being too pessimistic? Apparently these types of games are set to strengthen relationships and friendships, but what's wrong with actual human interaction? After all, everyone loves a bit of tangibility.

We'll see. Maybe I'll bag me a Sims boyfriend. Score :)

Super Sad True Love Story

Currently underway with my Masters dissertation, my brain is addled with thoughts of publishing houses, imprints and the demon that is Amazon. More a demon because I seem to be writing endlessly about its success and strategic cleverness, but less demonic in the sense that one can buy books at those prices! (Which totally contradicts my ambition to be a publisher).

Anyway enough about me. I do have a few quotes to highlight from Gary Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story. A good read, but I did have to work with it to get the job done. Having said that, I did love the imagery and Shteyngart's clever wording:

Quote #1:

p.19 'Fabrizia. Her body conquered by small armies of hair, her curves fixed by carbohydrates, nothing but the Old World and its dying nonelectronic corporeality.'

I would love nothing more than to see a man approach a woman in a bar and use the line 'you are so beautiful, with your long flowing hair and your curves, fixed by complex carbohydrates.'

Throw a bit of Lipase in her drink, get the old Lipolysis going, and we could have that ass broken down in no time! (I have a tendency to associate words with chemical reactions, not sure why that is, but it keeps things interesting. Either that, or it says a lot about me).

Quote #2:

p.242 'A sickening Caucasian fear, mowed grass and temperate sex mixed with a surprising shot of third-world perspiration, crowded the borough's most elegant street.'

'a surprising shot of third-world perspiration' - genius.

Quote #3:

p. 302 '"Blustery." Just one word, a word meaning no more than "a period of time characterised by strong winds," but it caught me unaware, it reminded me of how language was once used, its precision and simplicity, its capacity for recall.'

From the perspective of a jargon-fueled global discourse of texts, tweets and technology, I hope that this will not ring true one day. Innit.

Do we choose our books or do they choose us?

I have been doing some research into the role of the imprint in the publishing industry and am trying to tackle the question: do we choose our books or do they choose us? Of course physically, we pick out the books we want to read - depending on our mood, our frame of mind; creative marketing strategies help too. But ultimately, who is choosing the books that make it to our bookshelves? Or onto Amazon web pages should I say.

Do the publishing imprints generate information based on their audiences in order to produce books that cater for their 'reading needs', or do our reading habits thrive on the titles that are presented to us as a result of the choices made by experienced publishers? Because I sense a slight dilemma in the world of publishing if all books are to be created on a fundamental basis of audience cravings - what do we know about good reading after all? Surely a decline in the quality of books produced is inevitable if editors are forced to dismiss titles which they consider great potential reading, to make room for something that is more commercially viable?

Amazon.com has launched a number of its own imprints, basing chosen titles on audience recommendations, of course catering entirely for its market, generating huge sales as a result. But is this what we really want the future of reading to become? It seems that the influence of online retailers like Amazon will become detrimental to the types of books that we find ourselves reading in the future. I also feel that catering so directly to an audience will cause massive saturation points within the book market, filling up on chicklits and vampire thrillers for example - so we need to maintain a sense of variety to keep these markets flowing and allow for great new writing to develop and flourish, even if it means publishing a title that doesn't quite fit the 'niche'. Reading and the production of books is all about creativity, and innovative thinking, so maybe we let the publishers decide after all?

Saudi women find their 'online voice'

Following in the footsteps of the revolutionaries calling for change across the Middle East, women in Saudi Arabia are using the online medium of social networking sites to strengthen their political voices. The Women2Drive campaign, initiated by women’s rights activist- Manal al Sharif has generated a massive online following, having been launched on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. The campaign called for women to stand up to the law and get into the driving seat on June 17th 2011.

Portraying videos of al-Sharif driving a car, the original Facebook page was swiftly deleted by authorities, but a new page was launched by supporters contributing to the cause in order to keep the initiative going. Since releasing videos of her driving cars in Saudi Arabia, al-Sharif has been arrested, detained, re-arrested and released on bail, on the condition that she does not drive and does not speak to the media regarding the campaign.
1990 saw a similar uprising in Riyadh, with dozens of women getting behind the wheels of cars in protest of the law. This resulted however, in a one day imprisonment, the confiscation of their passports, and some of the women losing their jobs.
The social scene is changing. These women are resolute in their aim and are using the strength of their online voice, their online presence to change the driving laws in Saudi Arabia. Facebook and Twitter are increasing the accessibility to information on such a huge scale, that they are making so much possible. Of course this can be both good and bad, rallying support in massive numbers- but it also provides opportunity to make a change. But will their voice be heard? And will it make a difference?

Friday 17th June 2011 saw a handful of women driving in Saudi Arabia, but it was certainly not a matter of history unfolding before our eyes. Police were told to turn a blind eye that day; this lack of acknowledgement simply highlights the fact that they do not intend to listen. And to what? It turns out that this 'online voice' was merely a facade; there was no power of assertion behind it for many so-called supporters of the campaign- just empty words.

Andrew Marr talks London Underground

I just want to give a quick shout out to Andrew Marr for his creative use of language, likening Tube travel to an "urban heart attack." Yes that's right, the London underground system is in serious danger of a cardiac arrest if things don't change; I'm talking smaller portions (of people) and healthier ingredients (doesn't translate). I would certainly appreciate less of the 'armpit-in-face' gesture if at all possible.

Time to unclog the "clogged-up arteries feeding the beating heart of London." Who needs TS Eliot when we have the poetry of Andrew Marr? I love it.

hehe

TS Eliot's Widow Joins 'Get London Reading' Campaign

Valerie Eliot, widow to one of the greatest poets of the 20th century has joined the campaign to get London reading, by donating £1,000 to fund two volunteers. She describes reading as a human right, deserved by everyone. And I couldn't agree more; without reading, one is blind to their surroundings. Never mind novels; think street signs, newspapers, not to mention those all-important health wheels on food packaging. I would certainly feel less guilty eating cheesecake if I couldn't read the ingredients. But that's besides the point. The ability to read is equivalent to the ability to breathe. Actually, no it isn't, I just wanted to sound really philosophical for a moment. But let's face it, it is pretty damn important. And did you know, Valerie Eliot met TS Eliot at Faber and Faber where she worked as his secretary?! Saucy. So there's hope for me yet.

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965). The Waste Land. 1922.

The Waste Land

I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.

Our Digital Voices

So all of a sudden so many of us have a voice. A voice that we didn't necessarily have pre-digital, pre-social media, pre-Twitter.

It's ironic that one feels a greater sense of security in voicing their opinions and their feelings in an online setting, in spite of the fact that these thoughts are very much open to the world to see and judge. Yes that's right, I am a hypocrite, hiding behind my persona as 'the blogger.' But the freedom for discussion, for debate is liberating, particularly in societies where this may be more difficult to achieve in an open setting. Of course, it works both ways as it also opens you up to scrutiny.

The blogging phenomenon has created some of the most innovative and inspiring writing, because of this idea of liberation, the freedom to say what you think. Personally I think people should say what they think more often, rather than skirting around the issue. Of course there is no need for rudeness, but etiquette and political correctness just go too far in my opinion (with exceptions of course) and I think people need to be more to the point in what they say. I am all for a please and thank you, and holding the door open is always nice, but "I don't mind" just doesn't get the decisions made. Another pet hate: "But it's been 43 minutes and he still hasn't text back." So text him again. Words. Digital words. It is all down to words. And if Tom, Dick or Harry don't have any words for you then expend your time and your vocabulary elsewhere. In light of being politically correct it doesn't necessarily have to be a Tom, a Dick or a Harry. There could be a Carlos, an Ahmed or a Sunjay in the mix.

Gotta love a bit of old school Nokia.

I know a lot of debates over digital communication centre around the fact that people are no longer communicating face to face, instead separating themselves by means of a digital screen, throwing words into the ether of cloud technology. And yes this is totally true, but social media and digital communication have also done a lot of good, in terms of marketing for example. Consumers learn about their products digitally, and producers simultaneously learn about their audiences and who they are marketing to. Amazon, Google- they know what we want and that is why they are so successful. I may despise Google from a publishing standpoint, in their aim to create the largest digital library in the world, trying to bypass copyright laws left right and centre. However, we all use Google because Google can provide the information we want, when we want it, and pretty much wherever we want it. The term 'Google it' speaks volumes about their success as a company. I only wish I had invented it.