Year: 2010

  • Beaming

    1980s – Sunday mornings, Doordarshan.

    1990s – Weekday evenings, Star Plus

    “Space.. the final frontier.” An entire generation got its thrills from those lines, and fashioned homemade communicators and phasers that at least stunned their parents, mostly because some other objects would’ve been dismantled in the construction. 🙂

    On the day that I posted the Lego tales, I happened to see this – Creative misuse + Lego Star Wars = Lego Star Trek, and smiled at “as someone raised on both universes”.

    And a few weeks back, I caught Star Trek, the 2009 film, on HBO. I missed it in the theatre, partly because I didn’t want to spoil the images of an era gone by. Though Captain Jean Luc Picard and Lt. Commander Data did make good attempts at engaging viewers, Captain James T Kirk, Spock, Dr.’Bones’ McCoy, Scotty and the remaining crew would always be Star Trek. But curiosity meant that I couldn’t miss it on television.

    And it was an amazing experience. To see the old characters played by new faces, to wait for characters to appear, and to see the back stories fit like pieces in a puzzle, to see the cameo by Leonard Nimoy, to once again behold the USS Enterprise…. a “mind meld” of sorts and “emotional transference” was an effect too.. 🙂

    It was difficult to see Zachary Quinto as Spock, more so because I’m  used to him as the evil Sylar in Heroes. But I thought he  did a stellar job. Incidentally the original Sulu, also stars in Heroes as Kaito Nakamura, Hiro’s father. Eric Bana was disguised enough for me to not have Hulk visions. It was great to see a new version of Uhura without the Amrish Puri like hairstyle.

    It was impossible to see Chris Pine and not remember the inimitable William Shatner as the original James Tiberius Kirk. I still remember my initial difficulty in accepting Shatner as Denny Crane in Boston Legal, but my affection for the series was much increased by his Star Trek references, especially one season finale in which he told Alan Shore that he had once captained his own ship. 🙂

    When I see the word ‘epic’ used these days, I wonder how many of those experiences would stand the test of time. Star Trek belongs to an earlier era, when we had fewer epics and our options to step out of reality were limited.

    until next time, live long and prosper 🙂

  • The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

    Mark Haddon

    Written from the perspective of Christopher John Francis Boone, a 15-year-old autistic boy, the book begins with Chris deciding to investigate the mystery of who killed his neighbour’s dog – Wellington. Despite several setbacks, even from his father, who is usually supportive, Chris continues his dogged pursuit. The rest of the book is a vivid tale of how Chris methodically goes about solving the mystery, and the other things his seemingly simple quest throws up.

    The detailing of Christopher’s character – behaviour, his thoughts, the way his mind works, his likes and dislikes, is extremely well done – right from the chapters appearing in the prime number sequence to the solution of a maths problem in the appendix.

    Chris’ perspectives on many questions that mankind still debates on – computers and human brains, time and space, God and evolution, (though I felt it sometimes stretched the character’s possibilities a bit too much) combined with his inability to comprehend several things we take for granted – jokes, for example, or his having to cut a patch of hair off because he wouldn’t let anyone shampoo off the paint that had got stuck on it, makes for an endearing character, that leaves you poignant.

    Chris’ father Ed is also someone I felt sorry for, it is perhaps impossible to comprehend the patience required to parent Chris. Chris’ teacher/friend/mentor Siobhan is also a memorable character for the tremendous understanding she shows while helping him adjust to the ways of the society he lives in.

    In essence, a unique and excellent read that makes one think of the paradox of simultaneous simplicity and complexity in the human life.

  • Chief Social Media Officer then?

    I remember writing about the ‘technopologist’ about a year back, in the context of businesses only looking at social platforms through a brand/marketing prism and not sparing a thought on the other implications/potential – organisational culture, business policies, to name a few. The technopologist -a hybrid of marketer, technologist and social anthropologist was a hot topic of discussion then, in the wake of P&G’s move in that direction. I realised I was late for that party when I read a WSJ post from 2008. (it still holds true) 🙂

    I didn’t hear much about the technopologist after that, but a related shiny new animal is now the butt of several jokes. Social media experts are now everywhere, and there’s no dearth of brands wanting to ‘do the social media thing’. It is a generic label used without considering the expert’s domain of expertise (strategy/execution/tool specific). But what about the organisations who hire them without sparing a thought on what their core principles are, and how they could re-engineer themselves for new forms of usage. (in this context, do read ‘There is no new media, only new consumption‘) Expertise in a situation when neither the internet nor the brand manager are sure what they will morph into.

    What reminded me of all this? The recent buzz about the Chief Marketing Technologist. Another term that was apparently coined in 2008, thanks to Scott Brinker. The case for it is strong enough, and I did nod in agreement several times while I viewed this deck, and , but I couldn’t help but wonder whether this too will become a buzzignation (buzz+designation – hey, I can try too) that made sense but couldn’t actually fructify.

    From my (limited) experience in dealing with those aspiring to use social platforms in their organisations, I’ve noticed that the actual challenge is not in realising that this direction of technology and marketing is perhaps an inevitable future, (they either know it or the slideshare ppts will convince them), but in evolving a perspective that is not weighed down by someone else’s experiences of social platforms, their own notions of what their brand/organisation is, how their stakeholders view them, and therefore, what they should do on social platforms. A new designation can only help so much in this.

    until next time, cornered offices.

  • Crowded Out

    At restaurants, in movie halls, in malls, I sometimes come across people who’re there all by themselves. Not the corporate warrior catching a quick lunch, or the guy catching a movie in a multiplex to kill time, or the husband who got lost while his wife concentrated on the shopping, but the people who look like they wished they had someone to share the moments with.

    I see them furtively glance at the other tables and people, as though trying to steal a vicarious experience. I sometimes wonder how they came to be that way – are they introverts who never managed to get out of their own company, or people who found their partners or soulmates, and lost them midway to life, or did they make a choice of being alone, only to regret it much later in life.

    And then there’s the flip side too. Happened to see Robin Williams’ “World’s Greatest Dad” recently, and was reminded of that. While I agree that ‘lonely’ and ‘alone’ are not the same, I quite liked this line from the movie

    “I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It’s not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone.”

    In a hyper connected world, with its own sets of cliques and norms and validations and more often than not, a lack of compassion, that is a thought I can relate to. Thankfully, the movie’s soundtrack offers a solution 🙂

    I’ll say who cares
    When people stare
    I will make myself invisible
    Yes I will

    Invisible – Bruce Hornsby

    until next time, virtual immaterialism 🙂

  • Social evolution, at least?

    Judging by the number of responses to his article in ‘The New Yorker’, Malcolm Gladwell seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers, especially in the Twitter loving community. Not surprising, since he has torn apart at least a couple of Twitter’s poster children revolutions – Iran and Moldova. His grouse seems to be that we have forgotten what activism is, and are perhaps doing the word disrespect by using it for activities that happen basis the ‘weak ties’ of social media. The benchmark he sets for activism are indeed high – the Civil Rights Movement, which happened before and without the internet.

    I could give you quite a few links that offer rebuttals to this argument or try to put in context – Evgeny Morozov’s post in NYT, Maria Popova’s vehement retort, Gaurav’s 6 point reasoning of why Gladwell is wrong, Anil Dash’s more nuanced approach, and even cite say, a Pink Chaddi campaign (in a country which has a single digit internet penetration) to attempt a contra view. But there’s no denying that armchair activism/slacktivism exists.

    However, as Maria explains in her post, different generations face different societal challenges. They also have a different set of tools that enable them to achieve changes in the status quo. And that’s probably why I think its unfair to dismiss the influence of social platforms in combating the issues of our time. The issues can be across domains – from water crises (check Mashable’s post on Blog Action Day 2010 – Water) to changing the ‘unhealthy’ business models of several traditional media outlets. It is challenging individuals to create and collaborate and break out of  work/life mindsets. I am able to be part of say, a micro finance venture and spread the word on social channels. Such changes can’t be deemed worthless. In any case we’re perhaps too early to postulate what these tools would achieve. Precisely being in the middle of this would take away our objectivity.

    Despite this hilarious Maslow’s hierarchy of internet needs, I’d like to think that we are moving through a hierarchy as web technologies evolve. From a general source of information, the web has moved on to being able to connect us in context. It has allowed the rapid amplification of signals. We have only started with location as a context of networking. There would be a tremendous difference when we start addressing civic issues, using social tools as a means to aggregate locality based communities.  In essence, tools are just that, and we have to define contexts to make them more useful. And we have to evolve to that level.

    Maybe there will never be massive revolutions, just small uprisings across time and place that subvert what could’ve been a great crisis if it was allowed to grow without checks.

    until next time, rebelution it is 🙂