Lately, I am more and more interested in the Internet culture. I’ve been visiting forums (or should I say fora), I’ve been reading blogs and articles, browsing funny websites and so on and so forth. The terms furries, lolcats, fads, internet meme, rule 34 and others actually mean something to me. I am not proud of it, but it has happened and I accept it.

My latest Internet “thing” is StumbleUpon. It’s basically a toolbar for the web browser, which you configure according to your interests and it lets you visit random websites that are related to your interests (or were declared by their owners as related to your interest, while in fact they have nothing to do with what you like).

Using this tool got me thinking. I could feel a whole website with things I find through it without breaking a sweat. And that’s when I realized that people are already doing that. I know of a few online columns that all they are doing is give you links to interesting websites. If I had to guess, I would say that they follow a few particular websites (like wired.com for example) and then use StumbleUpon for the rest of their content.

It seems to me that what is valuable in the age of the Internet is not the content produced but the tools to make it accessible. In this situation, it is impossible to know what is original and what is not; but in the end one thing is certain: the original content is most likely made for free by end-users like you who are reading the page. I am sure that StumbleUpon has sponsored “Stumbles” (and if it doesn’t, it will soon), which bring money to it. And while it is the user made content that make it a useful and interesting tool, it is StumbleUpon and its advertisers (who have all the uninteresting content, most likely) that make the money.

In that sense, people are getting paid to write columns, which link to things they found on StumbleUpon or a couple dozens of their favorite websites. So, we have a few web pages which actually provide new content and actually pay those who create that content, a lot of free websites around the world with remarkable content and those who use various tools to link to these websites.

I am wondering if this is illegal. I know that by writing something and leaving it to the public domain means that you don’t expect any money from it, but doesn’t it also mean that no one else can make money from your own work? I presume that if this blog is a StumbleUpon destination, it is not illegal, since by using WordPress means that I agree to the terms of use, which most probably contain a clause saying that what I write here is theirs to use and make money from. But there are thousands of independently hosted websites with content that belongs to the public domain.

So, big corporations are making money from pointing to content that is not theirs and yet the same corporations (or others of the same persuasion) are suing people for piracy and copyright infringements. All these may be legally doable, but ethically they are definitely not…

Here I am, complaining about capitalism again, while I am not even that big on anti-capitalism.

I recently ran across this website (via StumbleUpon – more on this on some later post, hopefully) that was trying to teach its visitor how to read at a great speed. It also listed the advantages of speed reading over normal (?) reading.

Now, I am a slow reader; not just that: I read excruciatingly slowly; sometimes it takes me up to three minutes to finish a page. Given my chosen potential career, that can’t be good and I should start thinking of trying to learn how to read faster. This site (I can’t link to it, I never bookmarked it and I really don’t want to look for it), though I was quite skeptical about it, had me slightly convinced, until it came to a point that went something like this (this is not an exact quote: “Words are just words. In the end, it’s the message that needs to stay with you, not the words you are reading. By skipping passages you think are insignificant, you can read faster and still learn all there is to learn”.

To this I can only answer: WHAT? Words are just words and it’s just the ideas that we need to keep? That is entirely false; not just slightly false; entirely. And not in poetry or fiction; it stands for every book ever written. Mallarme had once had a conversation with a friend of his. The friend was complaining that he had so many ideas, but he can’t seem to put them to writing. Mallarme then answered that books are written with words, not ideas.

I may be reading slowly, but at least I know I will not miss a beautiful phrase, a great argument, a clever pun, an interesting allusion. These are also the things that define whether I like a book or not, not just the ideas, which are highly important, of course, but only a small element of what makes reading appealing.

So, I will continue to read slowly, 3 minutes a page is just fine for me (the book was proposing an average of one page per minute and was a promising that it could get us to 100 pages per hour). I will just spend more hours with the book, making it my company and not something that I need to get through quickly. True reading is never fast.

PS: When there’s time pressure and exams or deadlines closing in, I may allow an exception. But speed reading should never be the answer anyway. That’s the job of time management.

And she went strolling up among the petrified thousands, still laughing. She paused about midway up the slope and faced me. She called down to me, ‘Would you wish any of these alive again, if you could? Answer me quickly.

‘Not quick enough with your answer,’ she called playfully, after half a minute had passed. And, still laughing a little, she touched her finger to the ground, straightened up, and touched the finger to her lips and died.

This passage if from Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. Out of the three books I have read by him (the other two being Slaughterhouse 5 and Breakfast of Champions) this is probably the weakest, but in no means a weak book; I don’t want to go into details why it is a good book, but not his best. I am not sure I even know why; what I know, though, is that the passage above is another gasp moment. In its tragedy, it has lightness and simplicity, just like how Italo Calvino would have wanted it. I read the paragraph (particularly the second one; I quoted the first one for context) over and over again, for all the reasons that make me love a book.

I don’t want to explain what happens in the paragraph and why she (whoever she is) dies. You will just have to read the book.

Just like many other people, I have decided to write about what happened in (and to) Greece the past few weeks. Maybe it’s not what this blog is about and perhaps I don’t have any really useful insights to offer, but the Internet allows me a voice and I will use it.

Some facts first in chronological order: Policeman shoots and kills a 15-year old bystander, thinking that he was threatened. Protests and demonstrations are organized all around the country. Angry people fill the streets. Angry people, anarchists and looters start breaking shop windows and looting the products from inside said shops. Another kid is shot by an unknown person. A police bus is shot at by two AK-47s.

Perhaps not all of these events are related but they do indicate that Greece is in a really bad shape. Some half joking half serious are talking about a civil war. Nothing like that is going to happen. I am not afraid of an impending civil war.

Actually, I am not afraid of anything, as far as this matter is concerned. I am sad, I am angry, but not afraid; because it all comes down to this: the only victim in this whole situation is a kid, who died. The shop owners will be partially reimbursed, the angry people will calm down and everyone will get on with their lives a little worse than they were before. But the kid is still dead. He was not a hero, as many of the anarchists try to say he was. Being a hero means being reckless for some cause and there was no recklessness, no cause involved here. Just bad judgment, bad training and bad education. And these three aspects continued to be apparent throughout all the riots and the looting.

There are many people to blame over what has happened in Greece the past few weeks. And these people are the same both for the murder and the riots. And these are all of us; for all the reasons you and I can think of. Anarchists are not the problem; the fact that our society gives birth to people who become anarchists is the problem. Bad cops are not the problem; the fact that we hire and use and think we need (untrained) bad cops is the problem. Two sides of the same coin: our world is imperfect: some people think it needs tearing down and become anarchists; others think that we just need more order and give power to the police and the army. There is a middle ground, which is where most people are, but being on the middle ground means that you are not a person of action; I am not the person to analyze this further, I could easily be wrong about this, but it seems obvious that a change is needed. But the change doesn’t come from the middle ground, where I stand. It comes from the extremes, with which I strongly disagree. And right now the extremes can’t bring change (luckily), because not many people are at the extremes.

I wish it could all come down to the simplest of forms: Stupid policeman uses a gun, he kills a person, he gets life sentence. No reprecussions to society, nothing to be “done” about it, nothing to worry really, but be sad and, at some point, get over it. But this is not the case.

The problem is that I can’t figure out what the case is. I can’t offer a solution, no one can yet. We could bring everyone to the middle ground, I guess, but that seems like a “Brave New World” to me.

I am confused and sad and angry. And, for better or for worse, I will get over it. Only the victim’s family won’t…

But what is there to do to prevent something like this from ever happening again? Any suggestions welcome…

This is disturbing…

And yet, who can blame them?

Writing an essay and getting stuck at the sentence “The point here is that…” is not a good thing…

About 12-14 years ago, while I was still a young student learning English, I stumbled upon a quiz with a title like: “What do you think will have happened until 2020?” (it might have been 2010, I don’t remember). This quiz was probably there to teach us a tense: Future Perfect (what a lovely name for a grammar rule – and an even better one: Future Perfect Continuous), but I vividly remember one of the points I needed to decide if they would happen or not. It went like this: “An African American will have become the president of the United States”. I chose to put 5 stars to this statement, meaning that I was absolutely certain that this would have happened by 2020 (or 2010).

This question stuck to my head. How could I be so sure? There was no indication of anything like that. In my young teenager’s mind, I just wanted people to love other people, but I didn’t have that much hope in me; except for that moment when I chose to be absolutely certain about a thing that seemed impossible.

And now here we are. An African-American has become (will become) the president of the United States. I don’t have much love for the US and their imperialistic attitudes, but pragmatically speaking, in our age of media saturation and bombardment, the US play an important (perhaps the most important) role in how things evolve in this world; and I am part of this world. What’s more, even though I disagree with the mentality, I cannot but admit that they have done great things in many areas. One of them was to elect a black president, voted by whites and blacks together. This alone is an accomplishment.

Now, I don’t know Obama or what he has done. I don’t really care to be honest. I don’t think much will change in their foreign policy. I just think that he is smarter than the previous one and that instead of making both bad and stupid decisions, we will get away with only bad ones; maybe not even those; maybe we will have a streak of good admirable decisions (but what’s a good decision anyway, since you cannot satisfy everyone? I am sure that the decisions I think are good will anger lots of his supporters in the States; and I have no say in his election).

I also believe that there is a great possibilty that Barack Obama is nothing more than a media construct. I am not saying he is, but I do say it is possible. For those of you who have followed my blog, you would know that I am suspicious of media; mainstream and otherwise. Everyone should be. You should even be suspicious of this blog you are currently reading. For all I know, Obama might be a mere puppet, as many liberal and leftist voices are saying. Still, I am not saying he is; only that he might as well be.

So, why am I satisfied, if not happy? This is because, media manipulation aside, this election means that the world has some hope in it. And I am using the word hope not in the way many people do: that Obama, they say, was the right choice and people looked past their prejudices to vote for him. Not at all. I am saying that there is hope, because, even if he could be the wrong choice, he managed to win and surpass whatever racial obstacles. In that sense he might as well be nothing more than a symbol, an empty signifier of a still fragile equality.

I saw an old black man crying on TV. He was yelling “We got there”. His life might not change; his attitude towards it will. It is not enough, but it’s a start.

PS: Of course, if Obama turns out to be a mere media construct, then these hopes can turn into destructive, false ones. Let’s hope he’s not.

PPS: There are obviously a lot of holes in what I say. Constructive criticism is welcomed, so I can fill them up.

There are many books that I love, even more that I like, but there are few books that have made me hold my breath, or breathe heavily. These latter books, I consider to be the masterpieces of my small literary canon.

Of course, when I say “hold my breath”, I don’t mean I am reading a page-turner and I can’t wait to see what goes on next. I’ve read and loved books of such kind, but it is rarely the reason for holding my breath. What does make me gasp, usually, is a beautiful phrase or a concept, so hard to grasp, yet so real to the reader during the actual act of reading. Still, this is hardly an explanation and, to be honest, there are a million beautiful things that can happen in a book, in a page, a line even, that can make want to read the same part over and over again, just to take it in.

If I were to name some texts that have done this to me, the first thing that would come to mind are Kafka’s parables. This is one very short parable that had this effect on me:

Give it Up

It was very early in the morning, the streets clean and deserted, I was on my way to the railroad station. As I compared the tower clock with my watch I realized it was already much later than I had thought, I had to hurry, the shock of this discovery made me feel uncertain of the way, I was not very well acquainted with the town yet, fortunately there was a policeman nearby, I ran to him and breathlessly asked him the way. He smiled and said: ‘From me you want to learn the way?’ ‘Yes,’ I said, ’since I cannot find it myself.’ ‘Give it up, give it up,’ said he, and turned away with a great sweep, like someone who wants to be alone with his laughter.

I don’t want to comment on it; that would be an analysis and that can’t fit in what I want to say here. Maybe this story won’t have the same effect to other people.

More examples of the moment that makes literature one of the best experiences our intellect can have:

1. “The Library of Babel” by Borges; the part where he talks about the circular, never-ending book that is God.
2. The beginning of David Copperfield and of Great Expectations.
3. Mason & Dixon by Thomas Pynchon; Mason’s reaction to Dixon’s death.
4. Tonio Kröger by Thomas Mann; the last 10 or so pages
5. The beginning of Calvino’s If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller
6. Hamlet’s line: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself King of infinite space; were it not that I have bad dreams” (I am quoting it from memory, so I might have said something wrong).
7. The final 100 or so pages of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot and the final 100 or so pages of Thomas Mann’s Dr. Faustus. These two novels are what turned me to literature in the beginning. The whole passages; one long breath.
8. “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, by Tolstoy, especially the beginning and the end.
9. Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America”; the part where the young protagonist realizes that he has sent his friend’s mother to her death.
10. The joke: “He should have three votes” in the beginning of Heller’s Catch 22.
11. The whole of Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5.

The list could go on and on. It can’t go on forever though, because that would trivialize the greatest moments of literature. The anticipation of a gasp and the reward of it coming is why I keep reading. If anyone decides to comment on this post, I would like to hear about other moments like these.

Nowadays, it’s fashionable for the big corporations to show off how environmentally aware they are, how “green” they have become. We all know that this is simply bullshit, but sometimes it’s just so obvious that it is.

Personally, I am not really “green”. I try to recycle a bit, but don’t get crazy if something recyclable gets thrown out. I turn off lights (but not my PC), try to remember to turn off the TV with the button, so it’s not on stand-by, try not to use too much water when I shower and that’s all.

What do the corporations do? They have little schemes to show how green they are, while on the other hand they fill the streets with power consuming neon signs and keep the lights on at their offices all the time. I am not even talking about production techniques; one way or another they have to manufacture their products, so this is unavoidable. But what about all this needless advertising, this needless spectacle, while they hypocritically claim to care about the environment? I know the streets of New York only from cinema and television, but tell me, is it really necessary to keep all the lights on all the time? It’s advertising. It is supposed to give you an edge over the competitor. If nobody does it, then the proportions stay the same…and you save money!

Anyway, this has been on my mind for a long time. We are talking about saving energy and yet what we save, we use somewhere else. There is a limit to what individuals can do and I have more faith in them and patience with them. But all those supposedly “aware” corporations are the ones who can really make a difference.

How many cities could get electricity, how many trees had to be cut in order to have the first F1 Grand Prix during nighttime? I read somewhere that there are several thousands 2000W spotlights giving light to the fans and drivers. And everyone says it looks amazing. Yes, it does, but at what cost. And if it just one race, not very important in the big picture, what kind of example does it give?

This post came from frustration. It is not entirely related to the theme of this blog and, really, I shouldn’t be talking since I am not the most concerned person out there. But maybe I’ll change; and help others change as well, in the process.

I’ve been following with interest, yet not closely, the campaigns for the US presidential elections. Even though I would prefer Obama to win (along with the rest of the world, I guess…the only ones who are not sure are the Americans), I am not the right person to say what I think about the two candidates (being a Greek and all…).

I would like to talk about an observation I made about the image and how it is formed and shaped, a process which is most apparent in the land of the spectacle, the US.

None of us has any doubts as to whether everything that reaches the media is perfectly designed and controlled, in order to present the candidate in the best possible way (of course, I am talking about the official campaigns). My thought is, however, that, if everyone is so aware that what they see is nothing but a carefully constructed image, why haven’t we got past that? Well, I think we have gone past that. What we are judging now is not how good we are made to think the candidate is, but how well he conforms to the needs of image and television. In other words, a successful campaign is not one who makes the candidate look trustworthy (we all know that it is his job to be presented trustworthy), but the one who is most successful at making him look more trustworthy. Basically, we are judging the image makers and not the candidates.

OK, maybe this is not making much sense. Maybe it’s just me and not everyone thinks like that. But knowing that a candidate will make himself look as good as possible, the difference is in how this is done. This is why small things that should be unimportant become significant. A slip of the tongue (and this can happen to anybody) is given meaning and destroys the image. We know where the candidate stands and a slip of the tongue can’t change that. And if we believe he is lying, then we will not wait for a lapsus linguae to be convinced. It all comes down to the fact that he made a mistake in front of the TV and that made him look bad. That’s where the negative publicity is based. No one actually believes those commercials, but the image is hurt, nonetheless.

In the end, the candidate is judged by if he looks handsome on TV. This has not changed in centuries, only in the old days, it was public speakers who won the attention of the crowd. Being a good public speaker does not mean you know what’s good for the public; in the same way, looking good on TV doesn’t make you a leader. And yet it is one of the prerequisites for election. And even if we are able to look past that trait of a candidate, it has become one of the things we are looking for.

One can say: “This guy is smart, knows a lot about economy and foreign affairs, unfortunately he doesn’t look good on TV”. Not being TV-friendly has a value on its own; it’s not bad because people may think that the candidate is stupid. It’s bad, because it’s bad.

I’ve said too much and this has confused even me. I hope that what I want to say shows somewhere in there.