The novel Ghostwritten and the Vermeulen article
raise the issue of “ghosts,” or invisible powers and that reminded me of
something current that invades our lives – the fact that we can be “seen” so
often without our knowledge. While I do believe in conspiracies, I do not think
that President Clinton ordered the bombing in Oklahoma City or other such
paranoid nonsense. The chapter in
Ghostwritten on the Zookeeper reminded me of something that I try to forget,
which is that our lives are catalogued, analyzed, and viewed by people or even
entities.
Every year at Christmas I have to tell my son that
he can’t use my laptop from the fall until December 26. As I investigate gifts
for him, the computer (or the Zookeeper behind it) remembers what I have done
and helpfully encourages me to buy more by sending me endless ads for products
I investigated buying and for ones I actually bought. Last year I bought him a
set of the Harvard Classics and I was immediately inundated with ads for book
companies also selling the same series. I ordered him a tennis racket, and was
peppered with ads for all kinds of tennis gear. If my son wanted to find out
the contents of his wrapped gifts under the tree, all he would have to do is go
on the web from my laptop. Supermarkets record similar buying information
through their club cards, which is why young women who buy pregnancy tests
receive advertisements for diapers and formula. The information is catalogued
and then the “Zookeeper” figures out what other products a woman of the age
might like to purchase.
Vermeulen discusses biopower versus sovereign power
– the bottom line is that our lives are ruled to some extent by either a
politician in a slick suit or by an invisible ruler. The latter ruler, however,
is more insidious, more invasive, practically invisible. Our Zookeeper (and we
don’t even know who or what that is) eases us into the abyss with daily
incursions into our privacy that seem fine until we realize just how much power
we have given over to corporate and government entities. While some paranoids
want to stamp government out of our lives (conveniently on some issues anyway)
and withdraw to a cabin with an Uzi, I just want the Zookeeper to give me a
little more space. It reminds me of the aphorism of the frog who jumps out of
the boiling water but who meets a slow death in tepid water. Are we in tepid or
boiling water? Or are we unaware that we are in the water?
Just a quick thought I had... It's interesting that in the Zookeeper chapter Bat keeps playing the next "track" rather than "song" or any other word choice. It isn't an unusual word to use, but just makes me think more about it when considering the "watching" context.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why pop-up ads on my homepage and spam in my e-mail refer to things I have looked at--never mind bought. But why do I get spam mail from nubile Russian women eager to meet me? (somebody 'splain that to me). I talked about his Serendipity in my response to Matt's post. Here is another example of a "supreme" power able to direct others to kill people with a gas bomb in a subway. And he receives adulation from members of the Fellowship that includes, I believe. sexual favors. But then we see that his Serendipity is a fake as he is led off to prison. Is this another example for us to be wary of those in power? Are they what they seem?
ReplyDeleteYour comment: "Vermeulen discusses biopower versus sovereign power – the bottom line is that our lives are ruled to some extent by either a politician in a slick suit or by an invisible ruler. The latter ruler, however, is more insidious, more invasive, practically invisible" really made me think. I began to wonder, "Hmm, who would I rather have rule over me?" Is it better to have some slime ball politician who is only semi-intelligent and leaves me alone for the most part OR an invisible entity that weasels its way into my subconscious to determine my fate. Honestly, I think I prefer the slimy politician. At least that way, I am fully aware of getting screwed-over. Everyone knows that politicians lie. I mean, it's laughable when one's campaign is grounded in honesty. If someone has to come out and say they are honest then honestly, they are most likely anything but. But there is something refreshing about being well-aware of someone's shortcomings. That way, you can learn how to maneuver around them. It's an absolutely terrifying thought, on the other hand, that some invisible entity, force, or being could control my fate. There would be no way of defending yourself against that. It's like a black panther sneaking up on you. You are totally unprepared to deal with the attack. But alas, I am off topic. The textual point that I would like to tie all of this together with is a brief rant courtesy of Margarita:
ReplyDelete"But really, where's the difference? It is now what it's always been. recognizing the real but invisible goalposts, and using whatever means are at your disposal to score...You used to pay off your local Party thug, now you pay off your local mafia thug. The old Party used to lie, and lie, and lie some more. Now our democratically elected government lies, and lies, and lies some more" (206).
Who is in control, REALLY? Alarmingly, the fact of the matter is that in our current society, there are A LOT of "people" or organizations in control of us and we also have both types of rulers. We have the obvious slime ball politicians who claim to know what's best for us AND we have the invisible and often insidious entities that dictate our futures. There is the seen and there is the unseen. One cannot exist without the other. And that, my friends, is slightly unnerving.
I think what is interesting about Mitchell's Zookeeper is that it is portrayed as benevolent and tortured by the ineffectiveness that results from its flawed programming. Despite the Zookeeper's mechanical portrayal, it's tough not to feel bad for it as it futilely attempts to reconcile its fundamentally irreconcilable programming. It is the humans that programmed it that are flawed. Somehow it has grown a conscience and wrestles with problems to vast for any of the other characters in the book to even grasp, let alone contemplate.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about what Mitchell might have been trying to do here. It certainly doesn't seem that is the Zookeeper is a stand-in for "biopower" that Mitchell is attempting to condemn it through his novel. It seems more correct to read it as a warning, not that the outcome or product of that biopower will be a bad one, but instead that we must think more carefully about how it is constructed.