Social media reciprocity (and why it's bad)  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , , , , , ,

I have no reason to lie: I get kind of upset when people send me invitations on Facebook to become fans of something they are trying to publicize. I usually do it anyway, because for people in my line of work it means money in their pockets (or does it? more on this later) but when it comes time for me to push my work, no one gives a good goddamn about repaying favors. 


Now, I'm not taking it as personally as that sounds. If anything, I applaud their fortitude and forthrightness in not promoting a link (mine) they don't wholeheartedly endorse. Furthermore, I find the component of netiquette that demands reciprocity to be somewhat cumbersome socially and counterproductive to the utility of social networks. Ideally, we are promoting and sharing content we find interesting so that like-minded individuals can find this content and be entertained or edified along with us. Instead, we get more social and less network, with people linking the work of friends and coworkers out of loyalty instead of some level of interest that is objective and not personal. 

I am not suggesting loyalty is a bad thing. It's a very positive character trait, and one that I value very highly on a personal level. Facebook, Twitter, and the other social networks that matter are not private parties between friends, though.  They are open forums that allow for transmissions of information in a way that is, at very least, partially public. There are a few things about these circumstances that should inform our behavior a little differently:

1) Sharing/retweeting/reposting links from your contacts will have little to no effect. Think of your own web-surfing habits: do you ever click links you that you don't think will entertain or educate you? No, you don't; in fact, you are very discriminating, avoiding links that don't appear informative or entertaining enough for your high standards based on little more than a thumbnail and/or a descriptive blurb. While you may be quick to click the links of your friends, comment on them, praise them, and plaster them all over any place on the internet that allows you to do so, the rest of your friend/contact/follow lists will not be bound by the same level of loyalty. They will simply use the same filter they always do, and not because they're uncaring jerks, but simply because that is the kind of autopilot all of us use for navigating the internet. 

2) Your loyalty is bound to please the person whose link you are promoting... and that's about it. Everyone else is learning gradually that you post links in which they are not interested. Slowly but surely, you are teaching them to ignore you. The next time you have something to share, it will be viewed with some level of prejudice, even if they would be interested once they'd given the notion of your link a fair shake.  Not only are you stripping yourself of the power to promote your friends, but also yourself. 

3) Reciprocity is fragile. As my own experiences indicate, not everyone sees your loyalty to them as something they want to or should pay back. If you view your relationship with these people as primarily social, it can be a little hurtful or insulting. If you view your relationship as purely professional, it can be even more damaging: since you recieve little to no benefit from the free favors you are doing for someone else, you stop doing it. Suddenly there is nothing friendly about you relationship, and it becomes entirely based on quid-pro-quo at full retail markup. 


So now having said that, I think the best way to treat the links of friends and colleagues is the same way you would treat any link. If they link interests you on a level that transcends your personal connection to the link's author, then feel free to evangelize. In fact, I urge you to do so. If you're actually thrilled about it, your excitement will shine through, and ideally it will be infectious zeal that rallies your contacts to attention. If you are not interested in the link, then despite your connection to the link's author, ignore it. I promise you that your contacts are far too intelligent to miss your lack of excitement. Although it may be more difficult that mechanically fulfilling your social obligation, you will actually help the link's author by showing them that no one- not even close friends- care to read or view that material. Hopefully, they will begin to produce or share more appealing content. The notion that you could take an interest in what they produce is admirably loyal, but ultimately wishful thinking. 

When I see the state of social networks today, I see we have a long way to go. On Twitter, there is a phenomenon called Follow Fridays, in which people post the Twitter profiles of people they find interesting. It is a way of encouraging their contacts to follow those interesting tweeters. Obviously, it has devolved into the same kind of mutual back-scratching that only creates more useless static and numbness. Follow your friends? Why should I? What do they have to say? To date, I have not followed a single person as a result of a Follow Friday recommendation, and I doubt very much that anyone has followed someone on my recommendation. This is why have completely given up on it as a fun but ultimately pointless experiment. To those who have very honestly ignored the content I produce, I thank you very sincerely. You've given me a valuable lesson and forced me to produce content that is more compelling to John Q. Public, and work on strategies for traffic generation that don't involve my wonderful and supportive friends. I am eager to make this courtesy reciprocal; consider this post my down payment. 

0 comments »

Twitterfails and Metatextual Chatter  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in



I'm not known as Twitter's biggest fan. I've griped extensively, on many occasions and in many forums, on the problems with Twitter. Just so I won't have to get into that again, I feel it's biggest problem is not technical, it's the fact that it's users are thrilled to death that they are using it and at the same time, by and large they have no clue what they're doing on it.

Having said that, yesterday's debacle regarding @replies was something of an embarrassment to the service, but it backed up my point perfectly. While Twitter was having backend issues, they tried to cover it up by suggesting the @replies were too complicated and causing confusion. Let's examine that claim for a moment: it goes without saying that the Twitter brass made a colossally bad decision in lying during a press release, but it's something of a testament to the utter ignorance of it's users. Techmeme and other aggregators began collecting dozens of editorials suggesting that the move was condescending. I'm hoping the irony of this is not lost on you: The tech press and public was effectively fooled by Twitter's early claims, yet outraged that they were being treated like idiots. Hey, stupids: you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass, which it happened to do later that day. If Twitter failed, then so did all the ignorant wags.

When you examine the content on Twitter, much of it is still some form of Twittershock: A lot of posts are simply enthusiasm for Twitter, or complaints about it, or boasts about the amount of followers the user has, or proclamations that it is the greatest thing ever, or pronouncements that Twitter is dead, or some combination thereof. When I think about all the press from yesterday, it is clear to me that not only does the public not understand fully what Twitter is, but they have no idea how to make it work for them in any sort of practical way. This leads to a great deal of chatter about Twitter on Twitter.

Was the tool built as giant exercise in metatext? Definitely not, but the more it veers in that direction, the more it pulls toward it's own demise. As the savvy 5% become inundated by the volume of pointless metatextual chatter from the other 95%, they find themselves in an increasingly insular community that is ill-equipped to educate the masses. For the masses, it is a flavor of the month, a drill in keeping up with the Jonses that will ultimately be left by the wayside when the next new fad comes along. In the meantime, it's practical potential is slowly choked by the way it is actually being used. So am I predicting it's death? Not by a longshot. However, before it sees its true potential realized, I feel sure that it is destined to be rejected by the public when the giddiness of exclaiming "look ma, I'm on Twitter!" wears off.

0 comments »

Fueled by Futility  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , ,

Mentioning a song that's stuck in your head as a prefatory note in a piece of writing is about the laziest thing a writer can do. If this kind of pseudo-start can be considered legitimately creative, then surely picking your teeth because something is stuck between them is at least as inspired.

That said, creativity is fundamentally affirmative. That is to say, the negation of a point of view or approach to a problem is not a complete idea in and of itself. Saying that something lacks substance is not substantial. You can uncross your fingers, you lazy hacks: it's not even ironic.

Now that I've thoroughly undermined myself, I can tell you that the song stuck in my head is Elvis Costello's "Shipbuidling". Aside from being delicate and understated, it's lamentation of a culture of war is as resonant today as it ever was. Despite the song's repudiation of war, Elvis Costello was not lacking in creativity when he wrote this. The important idea here is about the connection between prosperity and death, and our inability or refusal to find a better way.

I can't really think of an elegant way to segue into my point, and I'm sure both of you are getting impatient, so I'll spit it out: Why do we insist on exalting that which is ordinary? Why do we insist on searching for meaning in our random lives? I have another song. It's Bad Religion:

"So here we are again to experience the bitter, scalding end / and we're the only ones who can perceive it. While others sing of beauty and the story that's unfolding / as one that deserves praise and ritual."

Maybe this all sounds a bit like existentialism 101 (or not), but I frequently wonder why people act as though:

1) They are happy or in a neutral state of mind, when in fact they are generally nervous about something

2) They care about the mundane details of anyone else's life, when in fact they don't

3) They crave affirmation that these details matter.

Maybe it's just me, but I live my life feeling as though every conversation was a missed opportunity. Instead of discussing things that matter, we spend at very least 90% of our time communicating inconsequential details. More than that, though, I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who sees the strangeness in our attempts to connect with one another by hiding our true thoughts and putting on an act of general good cheer.

When I was in college, I had a professor who seemed thrilled to teach The Canterbury tales, delighting in the notion that the world would be poorer without perverted millers and sanguine wives. I tend to agree. Being a social animal has a homogenizing effect on behavior, and while this is normal, I can't shake the thought that a great number of people thrive on it, exalt it, embrace it with all their might. A profoundly boring circumstance to be sure... but I suspect this argument won't win me much support or gain me many friends. So... what kind of music do you like?

0 comments »

Jon Stewart vs. Harsh Reality  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , , , ,



I think Jon Stewart is very funny. He's provided me with countless hours of entertainment, and on more occasions than I care to admit, news. He's consistently found ways to leverage goofy grimaces and snide remarks into cohesive, intelligent, and stinging polemics. This was never more true than on his recent crusade against CNBC, where journalist Rick Santelli came to the facile conclusion that people unable to pay their mortgages are losers. 

Stewart seized upon this mercilessly, accusing the entire network of complicity with Wall Street criminals raiding our long-term investments, and suggesting that finacial journalists at large failed to protect the public from our current dire straits. To Jim Cramer, the gauntlet was thrown down, and he responded in kind. The Cramer/Stewart feud culminated in an appearance by Cramer on The Daily Show, in which Stewart eviscerated him, showing old clips of Cramer encouraging duplicity from financial professionals. 

I'm not defending Cramer. As Stewart himself stated repeatedly, this problem is not about Cramer nor is it his fault (which is not to say he is completely innocent). The problem I have is with Jon Stewart and his populist posing. If you've seen the extended Cramer interview, you may know what I'm talking about. Stewart continually attacks a contrite Cramer throughout the interview, and when he's finally submitted him and has Cramer apologizing and saying what is essentially "I'm sorry, I fucked up, tell me what you want me to say and do and I'll do it," Stewart changes focus and admits this is not Cramer's fault entirely.  He criticized the journalistic integrity of CNBC for taking the word of CEOs at face value. His whole point is that CNBC and financial journalism should not necessarily be a regulatory agency, but should be held essentially to the same standards as one, protecting the interests of the investor over all else.

While that would be wonderful, it was interesting to watch Cramer bite his tongue at these naive assertions. He was there to apologize and show contrition, so he certainly could not say "What about maintaining a dialogue with these CEOs? If we were there to police them, just how frank do you think they would be with us?" In any case, it was a typical position for Stewart to take, curiously landing somewhere between hypocrisy and oversimplification. If you take his position one step further, what about the credulity of CNBC viewers? 

These are hard times for everyone (except mega-crooks, of course), and in hard times a healthy dose of skepticism is good to have. Every single person in America who is of age to start investing has seen a bubble burst, and knows on some level that you can't make money (legally) without a real product. Stewart began his crusade by framing this topic with the words of Rick Santelli, suggesting that CNBC is out of touch and I, Jon Stewart, am on your side and totally pissed at these ivory tower dickheads. It's their fault for not warning you adequately. Well, Stewart has a point. But what about your responsibility, Jon? What about your analysis of the situation? Is it really the job of a man throwing plastic cows and playing sound effects to make sure you're well-informed? For that matter, is it anyone's responsibility but your own? 

My point is simple: Jon Stewart is a wonderful actor and a hilarious comedian. He is not the arbiter of financial responsibility. He has a point about the responsibility of the financial press at large dropping the ball, but if we listen to his rant and continually pass the buck-- to white-collar crooks, to lazy journalists, to blind regulators, or to innefficacious leaders-- we absolve ourselves of any blame or responsibility, and doom ourselves to repeat the cycle. The grand irony in this is that Santelli has been right all along: people losing their homes are losers. It doesn't mean they're bad people, it only means they failed to care for their investments properly, possibly because they listened to the wrong people. What Stewart is suggesting is that it's not their fault, and someone else should be vigilant, skeptical, and responsible for them, and while that makes for an influential argument on a fake news show, it'll get you only one place here in reality: in an apartment a few miles away from your former house, foaming at the mouth, pointing fingers, and wishing a TV comedian called the shots. 

0 comments »

Watchmen Origins!  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , , , , , , , , ,


It occurs to me that with the theatrical release of Watchmen just days away, hardcore fanboys are in for years of nightmares based on the torrent of incorrect comparisons the film will create. Just look at this snippet from this week's Entertainment Weekly (edited to remove the actors' names, because I hate transcribing):

"Rorschach is like The Spirit... except he's a joyless, hard-line misanthrope. The Comedian is like Captain America... but loyal only to sadistic thrills and a corrupt worldview. Nite Owl is Part Batman, part Iron Man... except he's a schlubby, impotent coward. Ozymandias is the resident genius... who's built an empire on superhero toys. (You see what we mean by irony.) Says Billy Crudup, whose blue, naked Dr. Manhattan is an almighty Superman dangerously detached from his own humanity..."

Irony indeed. Though EW's coverage is adequate, as a dyed-in-wool fanboy, I can't let these incorrect comparisons go without at least trying to correct them. To do so, we have to go back to the mid-80s, where DC comics was attempting to resolve a crisis. 


DC is one of the oldest comic book companies around. Over the course of their near-century of existence, DC acquired various smaller publishers, continuing to create stories for their newly acquired heroes. Their most famous acquisition (if you don't count Superman) was Captain Marvel, often referred to as Shazaam!. With his lively battlecry, spirited red costume, and boy scout-like demeanor, he was easy to incorporate into the DC pantheon of heroes. Others were not so easy. Some continued existing in their own universes, where there was no Batman or Superman. Some had to be written into alternate continuities where Batman and Superman exist, but live in a parallel universe to the one in the main DC continuity. 

While DC worked out the details involving their most popular characters, several others remained shelved, as they had for years. Among these were the ones that had previously belonged to Charlton Comics, including The Blue Beetle, The Peacemaker, The Question, Phantom Lady, Thunderbolt, and Captain Atom. Alan Moore, whose graphic novels From Hell, V for Vendetta, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen have all become movies, had at the time already successfully revamped and revived other lesser-known DC properties. He wanted to write a murder mystery featuring the unused Charlton Characters, but DC did not want to permanently marr these characters. It was a rather ironic choice, given that DC was in the midst of the most massive retcon (retroactive continuity change) in the history of comic books at the time. In any case, Moore was given the go-ahead for the story, but tasked with creating alternate versions of those characters. 

Free to create instead of adapt, Moore drew from additional influences to craft his characters. What follows is a list characters from DC, Marvel, and independent publishers and the Watchmen characters they influenced. 


The Comedian - Although he may appear to be a through-the-looking-glass version of Captain America, This character primarily partakes of The Peacemaker: a gruff, cynical vigilante with no superpowers, but a lot of firepower. Since he is in a command role, Moore and artist Dave Gibbons looked to Nick Fury, the leader of the secret military division called S.H.E.I.L.D. in the Marvel universe. Finally, to really flesh out The Comedian's worldview, they borrowed aspects of the Batman villain The Joker, to whom life is nothing but a sick joke that only he understands.  


The Nite Owl - No Ironman or Batman here. Instead, Nite Owl is simply an alternate version of the Blue Beetle, whose gadget lend him power, albeit power he is reluctant to have. 


The Silk Spectre - although she has no powers and appears to be a rather uninteresting character, she's one of the more clever statements included by Moore. Her influences are Black Canary, the DC-created, scantily clad heroine with sonic superpowers, Nightshade, the Charlton-created love interest for Captain Atom, and Phantom Lady, a cheesecake pinup heroine who passed through many hands before ending up as DC property. All three are part of a sub-genre that aims specifically to accentuate their sexuality. Silk Spectre has no powers, and in a highly metatexual moment, she wonders why she has to wear such a ridiculously revealing costume to fight crime. To wit, the costume Malin Akerman wears is very similar to the one worn by the latest version of Phantom Lady; whether this is a cynical nod on behalf of the filmmakers or just out-and-out irony is anybody's guess. 

Dr. Manahattan - though central to the plot, this is one Moore's more straightforward adaptations. He is Captain Atom through and through, although Moore's choice of nomenclature and Gibbons's choice to keep him nude present a highly politicized version of an otherwise plain- if powerful- hero. It is worthy of mention that Manhattan is the only character in the story with superpowers, unless a super-intellect counts.









Ozymandias - Another straightforward adaptation of a Charlton character: Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. Behold his senses-shattering origin!

"Peter Cannon, orphaned son of an American medical team, was raised in a Himalayan lamasery where his parents had sacrificed their lives combating the dreaded Black Plague! After attaining the highest degree of mental and physical perfection, he was entrusted with the knowledge of the ancient scrolls that bore the secret writings of past generations of wise men! From them he learned concentration, mind over matter, the art of activating and the harnessing the unused portions of the brain, that made seemingly fantastic feats possible! Then he returned to America with his faithful friend, Tabu, and sought out a new life, in a new land, that required the emergence of Peter Cannon... Thunderbolt."

While this sounds pretty close to the Ozymandias we recognise, those of us who have read Watchmen (over and over) know where the inversion lies...

Rorschach - The hero of the story is easily the most layered, complex, and enthralling character. Certainly his legacy goes back Will Eisner's The Spirit, but such invocations necessarily merit mentions of The Shadow and even the original Sandman. Some fanboys may even complacently mention the Charlteton character known as The Question, whose fedora and trenchcoat mask a face that isn't there, but symoblise an unflagging morality. What those fanboys may not know is that The Question was created by Steve Ditko, the artist behind Spiderman and other famous superheroes. If they don't know that, then they certainly won't know about Ditko's very own Mr. A, a hero similar to The Question. In Ditko's stories, Mr. A wears a suit and fedora as well, but he is not faceless: instead, we wears a metal mask that looks just like his own face, but shows an unchanging placid expression at all times. Mr. A's morality is far more unwavering than that of The Question; there is good and there is evil, with no middle ground. Mr. A is a fascinating creation in and of himself, and I intend to write more about him later (the name is unassuming, almost a bad pun, but proves that Ditko was a genius capable of creating concepts and characters with many layers). 


Having said all that, is there any resonance with Captain America, Iron Man, Batman, The Spirit, and Superman? Of course. Moore made it that way. If these twisted "real-world" heroes didn't resonate with the sunny, smiling, dimpled, arms-akimbo four-color heroes of the golden age, there would be no resonance at all. But a marred and twisted legacy is what this story is all about, so knowing the true legacy is necessary for a correct interpretation of what you will see on the screen. Besides, those of us who know will be sufficiently pissed off by the exclusion of Tales of The Black Freighter, so don't add insult to injury by comparing The Comedian to Captain America. 

0 comments »

You're Going to Have an Exciting Life Now  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , , ,

Although watching TV- a lot of TV- is one of my guilty pleasures, I rarely get the opportunity to watch many commercials. A combination of Netflix, torrents, and Hulu usually cut me off from the endless parade of hyperbolic claims and useless products featured in the typical commercial break; usually this is a huge boon. There are times, though, when it causes me to miss a rare moment of advertising genius. 


Enter Vince Offer. You probably know him as the fast talking, cockeyed, beheadsetted pitchman for Sham Wow!, a direct-marketed shammy that is supposed to be extremely absorbant and last a lifetime ten years. While it seems like a decent product, the truly impressive aspect of the commercial is the pitch: 




Are you following me, camera guy? The first time I saw this, I instantly noticed the pitchman, and felt sorry for him. I said to myself, here's another out of work actor hocking more As-Seen-On-TV crap. But something was different. What could it be? The outrageous claims? The stupid headset? The fauxhawk? The smaller right eye? I couldn't really put my finger on it, and I didn't give it much more thought, until today.

Today I saw another commercial featuring the same guy, this time selling a kitchen dicing tool elegantly dubbed The Slapchop.  As bold and yes, groundless as his claims were before, they were nothing compared to the statements he makes in the following video:

In case you missed any of the classic claims made in this commercial, here are a few:

  •  You're gonna be in a great mood all day
  •  You're gonna have an exciting life now
  •  You're gonna love my nuts
  •  Life's hard enough as it is, you don't wanna cry anymore
  •  We're gonna make America skinny again, one slap at a time
  •  Fetuccini, linguini, martini, bikini
  •  ...'Cause you know we can't do this all day
All this for $20? Amazing, Vince! What's even more amazing is this guy's hustle. It's totally genuine in the sense that he really is a hustler; A couple of years ago he made a film called Underground Comedy Movie, and inspired by the success of Girls Gone Wild, launched a direct-sales ad campaign on TV. Vince sued everyone he possibly could, for copyright infringement, for breach of contract, adding to the list of lawsuits he had already filed. Having failed as a comedian and succeeded at direct marketing, Mr. Offer decided to put his skills to use selling a more marketable product than his comedy, which brings us to Sham Wow.

Although many comparisons to Billy Mays (the reigning king of infomercial pitchmen) were inevitable, none capture the true brilliance of Offer. If you look at the list of statements he made in the Slapchop spot, you see there is the usual level of condescension found in direct-market ads. Here is a product that will fix your life! The thing about Offer, though, is that he knows it's there, and he is counting on our skepticism, and he lobs a grenade or two. "You're going to love my nuts" is clearly there to seed some laughter and to embrace the ridiculousness of these ads, but once he's got you laughing, he's got you listening. In fact, by writing this post I'm playing right into his hands. 

When I see Billy Mays in action, I see a throwback to the 50s. It was an era where the correlation between material satisfaction and true happiness was not in question. When Mays bellows, he is earnestly, really telling you that this product (a cleaner, a pan to make small hamburgers, or a different cleaner) will improve your quality of life. With Vince Offer, things aren't so cut and dry. Whether he know it or not, every other commercial attempts to convince us of things we know to be untrue on some level, yet they never let up their facade. They throw pretty models at us, show us fantasy situations, offer computer-generated models that are rarely representative of the product's actual capacity, and lie, lie, lie. Unless you're 90 or older, you've grown up with this, and you've learned to take advertising with a grain of salt. Offer knows this, and rather than attempting to overpower your doubts with a great pitch, he has created a caricature of the scummy pitchman that will promise you the world, and by striking a note that is at once parodic and frank, he circumvents your doubts and gets you to pay attention. He doesn't work around your scorn, he invites it, embraces it, mocks it, soaks it up, wrings it out, chops it to bits, and serves it on a salad.  



1 comments »

Time's Up  

Posted by Juan Aguilar in , , ,

I've been wearing this hairstyle for what seems like an eternity.
I am by turns amused with it, enamored
with its charm,
Terribly embarassed by its datedness,
Seduced by its orginality,
Protected by its length,
Exposed by it's obviousness.
Some days it makes me a starlet in a noir film
or a forward-thinking fashionista.
It makes me think of the retro-future
designs of the 1960s,
Where hover cars and kitchen phones
Promised a pristine world that could only exist
In our most naive and self-satisfied
flights of fancy.
Was there a time when this haircut was post-modern?
Not antiseptic?
Of the present and not just in it?
It's time has come;
I will cut a quarter inch from it and
Trade my old concerns for entirey new ones.

0 comments »
Older Posts