the stone gods, revisited.

alright, if you're a frequent reader of my blog, you may have noticed my references to "the stone gods" every now and then. it's actually a book by Jeanette Winterson, a wonderfully difficult current English writer. my favourite author, in truth. even though, like her other novels, it deals on some level with love triangles, gender roles, time variance, and other nuances of plot, i frequently find a lot of it relevant to advertising, marketing, and PR. that could also be because it's a futuristic book (see excerpt here, with the tour of the Blue Planet).

as i touched on briefly with the issue of transference in music, many things are becoming increasingly intangible as we move forward. American Shelf Life touched on this briefly with regards to money (and the decreased use of bills) but did not consider the same implications. it's something that the main character, Billie, in the Stone Gods had to deal with. all of their money was "theoretical" in the sense that ours is (with regards to cards). they had Credits.

problem with things you can't touch, that you can't own? problems with releasing data, this thing you can't take back? you don't know, can't control, where it goes. Billie falls into disfavour with the government. the Credits she "has" suddenly disappear. she can't park her car, her house is taken away. sounds familiar, right? like some case of stolen identity. except there's no law to protect that. any records of transference, done without her permission, have been deleted. as a friend once said in his blog, "What makes you think that because something is written down on a piece of paper it becomes true?"

i love this future we have coming. but in this theoretical space, i also have no issues around my own transparency and my own fear for it. i do use my debit card far more than cash. i had those same experience @SarahHutton described. but so what happens if our money becomes Credits? does that make you feel safer? or does it not concern you; does it not matter? i'd really be interest in the thoughts outside my own head on this one.

my first Facebook breakup. there's a point.

so, being a digital native has certainly made breakups more awkward. i know this has been touched on, especially with regards to the "surprise" breakup, where you log in and suddenly you're not in a relationship. oops!

...that's not what happened to me.
i was one of the original Facebookers. my college was one of the first 50, i think, if not less. this recent relationship was very long. it was the first one to be recorded by Facebook in my life, and now the first to go, it's evident how Facebook is changing relationships.

we actually had to have a Facebook Conversation. we broke up. does that mean we unFacebook each other right away? is it so important that we leave one another's presence and, to properly lifestream, we do it the same day?

...or do we wait a few days? to affect our own nonchalance. or because we don't want to talk about it. or in case we do that strange thing where we break up and get back together. better just not to change it until we're sure, right?

yes, i really did have that conversation.
apparently, Facebook is the measure of just how official my relationship is.
[can i get a "fucked up"?]

we Facebook broke up five days after our actual breakup. it was my decision. i woke up this morning thinking, you know what, it's time to Facebook it. it sucked. moreover, what was even weirder?

it lists my ex as "In a Relationship" as the new status.
apparently when i "Cancal a Relationship" [because it's a transaction, you know: "you never give away your heart; you lend it from time to time. if it were not so, how could we take it back without asking?" -- winterson] i only cancel it on my end. i'm single. the ex is "In a Relationship" with no one, but since it's a new listing, it gets broadcast like it's a new relationship.

...really, really awkward.
not to mention if i hadn't Facebook-stalked my ex right away and noticed this error, i likely would have been hella fuckin' pissed when i noticed in three days. and now i have to go text my ex to warn that i did it, so it doesn't look like a jab. or before weird phonecalls start coming about the New Relationship.

but my question: where is the broken heart?

save me from this world:

If you like, you may live in a computer created world all day and all night. You will be able to try out a Virtual life with a Virtual lover. You can go into your Virtual house and do Virtual housework, add a baby or two, even find out if you’d rather be gay. Or single. Or straight. Why hesitate when you could simulate.
And sex? Certainly. Teledildonics is the word.
(Jeanette Winterson, Written on the Body, p. 97)

'the stone gods' and why it matters.

i am that lit geek.

my 100th tweet [don't ask, i don't really care the number] was about Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods. i didn't even know. woo! personal landmark. i'm such a winterson dork.

anyway, the tweet was:
"strange question: have any of you read The Stone Gods by Jeanette Winterson?"

why is this fiction book important? everyone's twittering about ad:tech, and @alisamleo was talking about:
adtech: "are people getting freaked out" by individualized, behavioral targeting?
>> 39 minutes ago from web
adtech: well....depends on the age group. younger users don't care, its the internet economy...
>> 38 minutes ago from web

which got me thinking about how i'm still a little weirded out by it. i don't know if it's generational (am i not considered a young user anymore? i'm only 22) or just that i'm aware of what's going on; either way, i am still cautious about individualized targeting--even as i advocate it (see previous posts about choosing what our txt ads should be in order to keep relevance high).

The Stone Gods is similar in concept to other futuristic books. if you've read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, The Stone Gods is pretty much the direct inverse combined with Brave New World. among other themes, The Stone Gods addresses characters in a world that is hyper-marketed, hyper-targeted, and hyper-relevant. the computers know what you want before you do, right down to what you should wear (i'm sure Kenny Cole would love that -insert eyeroll here-). everything was so individualized that everyone began to be similar anyway, but it was what was desired regardless.

question posed: effective, yes. useful, perhaps.
but is this the kind of world you personally would want to live in?

no judgments here. i'm just honestly curious if you believe it would be beneficial, easier, and less stressful, or if it would "freak you out" about privacy etc.