So the day has finally dawned, the ever foreboding, increasingly immediate and somewhat unwanted end to my second decade of existance. 20. I feel old. Just minutes ago I was just a teenager, still excusable and naïve, now with the addition of one year I am suddenly called to manhood. Yet the unavoidable truth is that I have been living in manhood for the past two years behind this 'teenager' fasade which means absolutely nothing in principle but so much in practice. The popular phrase among friends has become that they are turning twenteen, but this surly is just prolonging the unfortunate and unwavering truth that we all have to grow up. One part of me is filled with guilt at the thought of how many countless hours I wasted over the last ten years when I could have achieved so much. The other is excited about the boundless prospects of my future, not tied down, unsure of what I would like to achieve but enthrawled by this fact rather than scared.
Self application has never been my strongest atribute and one which I regret not applying more regularly. When not good at application, applying further self application can be, and has been an issue. This is something I seek to change. Having spent the last 19 years of my life crusing I intend like so many years gone by to break the cycle. Is this just another lie to myself? I hope not and will feel utterly ashamed if after a further ten years this is not an area that has seen at least some improvement. I seek to excel, to use everything god has given me to the best of my ability, but not necessarily be 'the best'. Time has taught me that there are more people on this earth than we can truely imagine. This means that there is a large chance that there is always someone better than you, and if not, then there is a youngster who is growing up who will overtake you in your field and claim your place. Surely being the best you can be is best you can do.
The possibilities of life are endless, and I stand at the pinacle of choice, yet I am spoilt by this position which in a further 10 years I may acutley miss. The truth is I have no real ambition for one particular thing other then to marry the person I love and live life together. The details of what exactly that entails are scetchy, but of marraige I am sure. So what of the rest? Am I to be rich or poor, respected or rejected, loved or hated, or just some mediocre point inbetween them all.
I have 20 years of wisdom to my name, yet I feel I know nothing much. I am lucky enough to have known and live with love, from family and from a lover, with whom I am very much in love. But what of knowledge? I have completed my first year at university and feel to some degree less intelligent then when I started. Having only attended 10% (at a stretch) of my lectures it was not until the year had ended that I realised I am actually paying for every single class. Missing a few is fine but 90% is just finacially irresponsible. I thought studying economics is supposed to make you more prudent. Well hopefully the fact that I am paying several thousands of pounds a year which is being very thoughtfully bound up into a huge debt pile to the government by my bank will be sobering enough for at least 50% attendence this year. Hopefully.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Thursday, 12 June 2008
two
Media is a broad word. The Oxford dictionary gives it this meaning: “the means of mass communication, especially television, radio, and newspapers collectively”. It goes on to state; “The word media comes from the Latin plural of medium. In the normal sense ‘television, radio, and the press collectively’, it often behaves as a collective noun (for example like staff), and can be used with either a singular or a plural verb. Although some people regard the singular use as incorrect, it is now generally accepted in standard English.”
So, like many other words commonly used in the English language, the context we use the word media in is often incorrect, but should the fact that the use of a word incorrectly has become standard make it then correct to use it in such a way? Doesn’t it still remain incorrect? This is a strange problem… who decides these things anyway? Who’s place is it to say what is and isn’t correct. The English language has evolved hugely as has every language into its modern dialect. If it is the English language – the language of the English people –then surely the only people who can say what is, and is not correct, are those using the language. So, if it has become common place for users of the English language to use media in the wrong context, making it grammatically incorrect, it has therefore become the English language, meaning it must be correct.
Many people’s look on life is governed by the past. What is right or wrong, how things should be done, what is acceptable and what should be looked down upon. This is both very helpful, but also extremely limiting. Looking at what history has taught us is vital in knowing what to do next, but it is not the whole story. When studying what has been done well, and what could have been done better, one can understand the pitfalls of leaders and nations. Retrospect is a powerful tool. The underlying problem is how much to rely on retrospect and how much to allow new ideas to influence you.
A simple example would be a King who has a large castle. An enemy army comes to try and take it but the castle protects the King and his army, and they win the battle. The King dies an old man in peace and his son takes the throne. An army comes to take the castle, but this time technology has improved and they have cannons. The King is unfazed because he knows the castle did not fall under his father and so is sure he too will have victory that day. The cannons destroy the castle walls and the battle is lost.
The second King relied completely on retrospect. He became too comfortable because everything had been fine in the past. He didn’t modernise his castle, he didn’t get new weapons and he didn’t adopt new battle strategy which resulted in his downfall. Comfort is a very dangerous feeling. It is extremely difficult to carry on pushing for improvement when things are generally fine. The moment you stop, you are already one step behind and if something goes wrong it is your entire fault.
Another simple example would be a company director works extremely hard for a few years, desperately trying to improve the business. Then suddenly things start to improve, and he feels comfortable so slows down and relaxes a bit. The growth continues for a couple of years by which time he is doing hardly anything to improve the company because he can see it is going so well. Then suddenly the company begins to plummet and he cannot work out why. He then loses his job as the shareholders are fed up with him. They then hire another director and the process starts again.
The effects of hard work and improvement are often undetectable for a substantial amount of time. When things do start to improve it is easy to become complacent, or to think what you are doing at that moment is improving things, when in actual fact what you are doing has no bearing on the current situation, and may be detrimental when its effect takes place.
This can be seen in recent British history. Many historians believe the ‘Ten Golden Years’ of growth that we (Britain) experienced whilst Gordon Brown was chancellor had very little to do with him at all. In fact it can be said that the remarkable economic stability felt during the takeover and majority of rule of new labour was completely down to the Thatcher government. The move to monetarism, and crushing of the trade unions released Britain’s economic potential. In Gordon Brown’s defence, one very notable act was his move to give the Bank of England independency, but still make them accountable. This meant the Bank of England had no hidden agenda other than to try and encourage moderate growth and keep a hold on inflation. It also meant any problems felt economically could easily be blamed on the Bank of England by the Government. However, independent BoE or not, Britain was following economic principles laid down by the preceding Conservative government. The other policies adopted by Gordon Brown could be seen as irresponsible, for example selling off the last of the gold reserves. Yes, it promoted economic growth, but realistically that stability as I have already mentioned came from other policies, and that particular policy may have left us on unstable ground. Gordon Brown was comfortable, and took the credit for the continuing growth, which was not really anything to do with him. Currently Britain is facing the largest economic challenge of recent times (now Brown is Prime Minister – but lets be honest darling is purely a puppet chancellor) and some commentators would blame wholly this on Brown’s complacency. However, I think to do this is very simple minded. Of course he may have contributed, but the fact is that there are hundreds of pushes and pulls on the British economy, most notably recently, international financial difficulties. Therefore to blame it all on Brown would be like a conclusion from a GCSE history essay, and be using him as a cheap scapegoat. Brown himself was a puppet chancellor to the conservative economic foundations laid down before him. Perhaps this recent rift in the economic climate in Britain may do us good – it will force MPs into action, and hopefully they will be able to pull us out of it into another 10 years of growth, during which another chancellor will become comfortable and set us up for another fall.
Just a quick thought on the subject of politicians – the House of Commons is an absolute joke, but so incredibly important. It’s just such a shame it is overshadowed by ‘Punch and Judy’ exchanges. The whole thing is just one cheap jibe after another, trying to get ‘one up’ on the other side, its like being in a primary school playground when the daily cussing matches have commenced. How can important subjects be decided upon in such undignified exchanges. What has happened to honour and pride? Plus MP attendance is on the whole abysmal. I think everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed.
Similarly I am daily shocked at the extremely poor level of journalism that graces our newspapers, magazines, and also television. Just like the style of the House of Commons, media seems to be a little out of control. It’s easy to see why. Newspaper sales are on the fall due to the internet, so in order to sell they need to have mass appeal. Broadsheets are in the biggest decline as they seem to have some restraint as to not delving into what is just cheap. I was shocked when watching the BBC news at six, to find an MP being actively bullied by a newsreader over an issue of absolutely no importance. I was stunned that the story was even deemed newsworthy on a national level, let alone that someone deserved bullying over it. I can understand over contentious issues, when interviewing someone people have to be firm (Jeremy Paxman for example), but this issue was far from controversial. I almost wrote a letter of complaint, I would have expected that from maybe channel 4 or 5 but I count the BBC as the broadcasters of truth, the one channel left with the slightest hint of dignity. It seems on this occasion I was wrong.
Why are we as a nation so obsessed with celebrities? Why do people care what Posh has worn this week, or that a certain couple may be breaking up. Surely it is none of our business. If there is any section of the printed media world that is not in decline it is that of the gossip magazines. People can't seem to get enough of them, and even buy several different ones each week that actually have exactly the same stories and pictures in. Isn’t it an invasion of privacy and also a bit lame? Why can’t we live our own lives instead of trying to pursue other peoples? On that subject, I can’t understand why members of the paparazzi are not currently in jail. If I stood outside someone’s house all day and night, followed them wherever they went in a very harassing way, constantly in their face, I would be arrested. So why then does it make it alright for someone to do it because they have a camera in their hand – surely that should make it worse. Also at least when they are in someone’s face they are aware they are being photographed, what about celebrities who are on holiday on the beach being snapped by a paparazzi using an ultra long camera lens? Why is it not illegal to use those photographs – the person had no idea they were being taken, and they surely have no right to print a picture of someone without their permission, at least not of that nature. If I was being harassed in such a manor because I was famous I would definitely take them to court, and I’m not quite sure why celebrities don’t. The only reason I can think of is that many celebrities love the attention and feel that they need to be in the tabloids in order to retain their social position, which is very sad.
Degrees are a commodity with higher and higher importance, or rather, less and less importance depending on your viewpoint. The number of people doing degrees has gone up dramatically in the last decade due to the increasing necessity of one to gain a job that pays above the minimum wage. Degrees are now so commonplace that other methods of choosing between job applicants are having to stretch further than where and what you studied at degree level. More people are being pushed into masters or PhD research in order to stand out from the rest of the crowd, leaving them in higher debt and often spending time doing something they didn’t really want to do. This in itself is not the biggest problem caused by this huge influx of degree hungry students. The push by the Government to get more people into higher education has meant there are a whole load of people at University that shouldn’t really be there, but because of false aspirations that have been forced upon them the feel they need to go. These are people that really should have left school at 16 and gone onto a building site, done an apprentice in some sort of trade, or something like that. Not everyone is an academic so why are we so obsessed with forcing people to be academic. Some people do not want to study for longer and will simply fail because of lack of drive. Young people are being brain washed into thinking they need a degree.
In fact I know two people a couple of years older than me, who didn’t finish their A-levels and went to straight to work in estate agents. Both of them have done very well for themselves, rent their own place and own their own cars. They have moved up the company quickly and after just a few years are earning a serious amount of money. At 20, one of them is earning enough to buy his own house in London. Similarly I know another man, aged 21 who did complete his A-levels, but skipped university and went straight into an admin job at an investment bank. He then was asked to stay on, was trained internally and also is earning enough to buy his own house in London. While other people their age have been at university, these people have gone straight into work. At the end of those three years at university, their friends have a degree and are looking for a job. Those that have worked have three year of experience and expertise behind them, property investments and are not burdened with any student debt. These three people are very fortunate to have had such great opportunities, and I am not saying no one should go to university, but university is not the only way to have a successful career, experience is hugely important.
Degrees in media and such subjects are commonplace, but what media organisation would want someone with just a media degree? Wouldn’t they rather have someone who made films in their spare time at school, didn’t go to university as they had started working freelance because they loved it so much and then decided they might like to work full time so applied for a job. True – this will not happen for the vast majority, but it’s a question of supply and demand. There are not enough doctors, economists, mathematicians etc and far too many music technology, media and photography students that there cannot possibly be enough jobs for them. When doing creative subjects, taking your own initiative is paramount. If doing music technology you need to be recording bands in your spare time, remixing famous songs, DJing every week, just doing as many things and gaining as many contacts as you possibly can. Then when it comes to an interview your portfolio of work will actually be impressive, and maybe even inspiring. Passion shines through above all else, and you need to prove that passion through things you have done outside of your course, otherwise there really is no hope.
Effectively a media degree alone means nothing. A lot of degrees are leaving people thousands of pounds in debt and with no job prospects – even well regarded degrees. Am I saying people should not go to university? No. I am saying University is not suited to everyone and some people shouldn’t be bullied into going. I am saying the school leaver’s age should definitely remain at 16 (what’s the point of forcing people through A-levels if they don’t want to do them – they will probably not even turn up to the exams. It’s a waste of their time and taxpayers money). I am saying that degrees are vital to get well paid jobs in most sectors, but often not even enough to get one for many people, and I am saying that many subjects at degree level are largely pointless unless individual initiative and creative thought is used to stand out form the crowd.
So, like many other words commonly used in the English language, the context we use the word media in is often incorrect, but should the fact that the use of a word incorrectly has become standard make it then correct to use it in such a way? Doesn’t it still remain incorrect? This is a strange problem… who decides these things anyway? Who’s place is it to say what is and isn’t correct. The English language has evolved hugely as has every language into its modern dialect. If it is the English language – the language of the English people –then surely the only people who can say what is, and is not correct, are those using the language. So, if it has become common place for users of the English language to use media in the wrong context, making it grammatically incorrect, it has therefore become the English language, meaning it must be correct.
Many people’s look on life is governed by the past. What is right or wrong, how things should be done, what is acceptable and what should be looked down upon. This is both very helpful, but also extremely limiting. Looking at what history has taught us is vital in knowing what to do next, but it is not the whole story. When studying what has been done well, and what could have been done better, one can understand the pitfalls of leaders and nations. Retrospect is a powerful tool. The underlying problem is how much to rely on retrospect and how much to allow new ideas to influence you.
A simple example would be a King who has a large castle. An enemy army comes to try and take it but the castle protects the King and his army, and they win the battle. The King dies an old man in peace and his son takes the throne. An army comes to take the castle, but this time technology has improved and they have cannons. The King is unfazed because he knows the castle did not fall under his father and so is sure he too will have victory that day. The cannons destroy the castle walls and the battle is lost.
The second King relied completely on retrospect. He became too comfortable because everything had been fine in the past. He didn’t modernise his castle, he didn’t get new weapons and he didn’t adopt new battle strategy which resulted in his downfall. Comfort is a very dangerous feeling. It is extremely difficult to carry on pushing for improvement when things are generally fine. The moment you stop, you are already one step behind and if something goes wrong it is your entire fault.
Another simple example would be a company director works extremely hard for a few years, desperately trying to improve the business. Then suddenly things start to improve, and he feels comfortable so slows down and relaxes a bit. The growth continues for a couple of years by which time he is doing hardly anything to improve the company because he can see it is going so well. Then suddenly the company begins to plummet and he cannot work out why. He then loses his job as the shareholders are fed up with him. They then hire another director and the process starts again.
The effects of hard work and improvement are often undetectable for a substantial amount of time. When things do start to improve it is easy to become complacent, or to think what you are doing at that moment is improving things, when in actual fact what you are doing has no bearing on the current situation, and may be detrimental when its effect takes place.
This can be seen in recent British history. Many historians believe the ‘Ten Golden Years’ of growth that we (Britain) experienced whilst Gordon Brown was chancellor had very little to do with him at all. In fact it can be said that the remarkable economic stability felt during the takeover and majority of rule of new labour was completely down to the Thatcher government. The move to monetarism, and crushing of the trade unions released Britain’s economic potential. In Gordon Brown’s defence, one very notable act was his move to give the Bank of England independency, but still make them accountable. This meant the Bank of England had no hidden agenda other than to try and encourage moderate growth and keep a hold on inflation. It also meant any problems felt economically could easily be blamed on the Bank of England by the Government. However, independent BoE or not, Britain was following economic principles laid down by the preceding Conservative government. The other policies adopted by Gordon Brown could be seen as irresponsible, for example selling off the last of the gold reserves. Yes, it promoted economic growth, but realistically that stability as I have already mentioned came from other policies, and that particular policy may have left us on unstable ground. Gordon Brown was comfortable, and took the credit for the continuing growth, which was not really anything to do with him. Currently Britain is facing the largest economic challenge of recent times (now Brown is Prime Minister – but lets be honest darling is purely a puppet chancellor) and some commentators would blame wholly this on Brown’s complacency. However, I think to do this is very simple minded. Of course he may have contributed, but the fact is that there are hundreds of pushes and pulls on the British economy, most notably recently, international financial difficulties. Therefore to blame it all on Brown would be like a conclusion from a GCSE history essay, and be using him as a cheap scapegoat. Brown himself was a puppet chancellor to the conservative economic foundations laid down before him. Perhaps this recent rift in the economic climate in Britain may do us good – it will force MPs into action, and hopefully they will be able to pull us out of it into another 10 years of growth, during which another chancellor will become comfortable and set us up for another fall.
Just a quick thought on the subject of politicians – the House of Commons is an absolute joke, but so incredibly important. It’s just such a shame it is overshadowed by ‘Punch and Judy’ exchanges. The whole thing is just one cheap jibe after another, trying to get ‘one up’ on the other side, its like being in a primary school playground when the daily cussing matches have commenced. How can important subjects be decided upon in such undignified exchanges. What has happened to honour and pride? Plus MP attendance is on the whole abysmal. I think everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed.
Similarly I am daily shocked at the extremely poor level of journalism that graces our newspapers, magazines, and also television. Just like the style of the House of Commons, media seems to be a little out of control. It’s easy to see why. Newspaper sales are on the fall due to the internet, so in order to sell they need to have mass appeal. Broadsheets are in the biggest decline as they seem to have some restraint as to not delving into what is just cheap. I was shocked when watching the BBC news at six, to find an MP being actively bullied by a newsreader over an issue of absolutely no importance. I was stunned that the story was even deemed newsworthy on a national level, let alone that someone deserved bullying over it. I can understand over contentious issues, when interviewing someone people have to be firm (Jeremy Paxman for example), but this issue was far from controversial. I almost wrote a letter of complaint, I would have expected that from maybe channel 4 or 5 but I count the BBC as the broadcasters of truth, the one channel left with the slightest hint of dignity. It seems on this occasion I was wrong.
Why are we as a nation so obsessed with celebrities? Why do people care what Posh has worn this week, or that a certain couple may be breaking up. Surely it is none of our business. If there is any section of the printed media world that is not in decline it is that of the gossip magazines. People can't seem to get enough of them, and even buy several different ones each week that actually have exactly the same stories and pictures in. Isn’t it an invasion of privacy and also a bit lame? Why can’t we live our own lives instead of trying to pursue other peoples? On that subject, I can’t understand why members of the paparazzi are not currently in jail. If I stood outside someone’s house all day and night, followed them wherever they went in a very harassing way, constantly in their face, I would be arrested. So why then does it make it alright for someone to do it because they have a camera in their hand – surely that should make it worse. Also at least when they are in someone’s face they are aware they are being photographed, what about celebrities who are on holiday on the beach being snapped by a paparazzi using an ultra long camera lens? Why is it not illegal to use those photographs – the person had no idea they were being taken, and they surely have no right to print a picture of someone without their permission, at least not of that nature. If I was being harassed in such a manor because I was famous I would definitely take them to court, and I’m not quite sure why celebrities don’t. The only reason I can think of is that many celebrities love the attention and feel that they need to be in the tabloids in order to retain their social position, which is very sad.
Degrees are a commodity with higher and higher importance, or rather, less and less importance depending on your viewpoint. The number of people doing degrees has gone up dramatically in the last decade due to the increasing necessity of one to gain a job that pays above the minimum wage. Degrees are now so commonplace that other methods of choosing between job applicants are having to stretch further than where and what you studied at degree level. More people are being pushed into masters or PhD research in order to stand out from the rest of the crowd, leaving them in higher debt and often spending time doing something they didn’t really want to do. This in itself is not the biggest problem caused by this huge influx of degree hungry students. The push by the Government to get more people into higher education has meant there are a whole load of people at University that shouldn’t really be there, but because of false aspirations that have been forced upon them the feel they need to go. These are people that really should have left school at 16 and gone onto a building site, done an apprentice in some sort of trade, or something like that. Not everyone is an academic so why are we so obsessed with forcing people to be academic. Some people do not want to study for longer and will simply fail because of lack of drive. Young people are being brain washed into thinking they need a degree.
In fact I know two people a couple of years older than me, who didn’t finish their A-levels and went to straight to work in estate agents. Both of them have done very well for themselves, rent their own place and own their own cars. They have moved up the company quickly and after just a few years are earning a serious amount of money. At 20, one of them is earning enough to buy his own house in London. Similarly I know another man, aged 21 who did complete his A-levels, but skipped university and went straight into an admin job at an investment bank. He then was asked to stay on, was trained internally and also is earning enough to buy his own house in London. While other people their age have been at university, these people have gone straight into work. At the end of those three years at university, their friends have a degree and are looking for a job. Those that have worked have three year of experience and expertise behind them, property investments and are not burdened with any student debt. These three people are very fortunate to have had such great opportunities, and I am not saying no one should go to university, but university is not the only way to have a successful career, experience is hugely important.
Degrees in media and such subjects are commonplace, but what media organisation would want someone with just a media degree? Wouldn’t they rather have someone who made films in their spare time at school, didn’t go to university as they had started working freelance because they loved it so much and then decided they might like to work full time so applied for a job. True – this will not happen for the vast majority, but it’s a question of supply and demand. There are not enough doctors, economists, mathematicians etc and far too many music technology, media and photography students that there cannot possibly be enough jobs for them. When doing creative subjects, taking your own initiative is paramount. If doing music technology you need to be recording bands in your spare time, remixing famous songs, DJing every week, just doing as many things and gaining as many contacts as you possibly can. Then when it comes to an interview your portfolio of work will actually be impressive, and maybe even inspiring. Passion shines through above all else, and you need to prove that passion through things you have done outside of your course, otherwise there really is no hope.
Effectively a media degree alone means nothing. A lot of degrees are leaving people thousands of pounds in debt and with no job prospects – even well regarded degrees. Am I saying people should not go to university? No. I am saying University is not suited to everyone and some people shouldn’t be bullied into going. I am saying the school leaver’s age should definitely remain at 16 (what’s the point of forcing people through A-levels if they don’t want to do them – they will probably not even turn up to the exams. It’s a waste of their time and taxpayers money). I am saying that degrees are vital to get well paid jobs in most sectors, but often not even enough to get one for many people, and I am saying that many subjects at degree level are largely pointless unless individual initiative and creative thought is used to stand out form the crowd.
one
The first sentence is always the hardest. A well constructed phrase could cause love to blossom, and be the start of a long passionate relationship. The wrong words could bring you disfavour among the recipients. First impressions are hugely important – a well known cliché, but clichés are generally true, that’s why they are said so often. Much thought is put into those first few words in a book, which, more often then not, the reader doesn’t consciously notice. However, much of the power of the written word lies in the subconscious. A good novel will infer things that you won’t notice until the writer wants you to. Innuendo and nuance are vital tools for any author, however they must be used with the lightest of touch, otherwise the effect is completely lost.
Generally, the likelihood of someone reading a book all the way to the end relies on the first few pages. Very few people will press on through an uninspiring first and second chapter, unless a friend has recommended it to them with the advice that the start is slow and it heats up later. Many novelists will commence with a chase scene if the book is an action thriller or a well constructed descriptive piece about a love interest if the book is a romantic novel, and so on. The author is always trying to reel the reader in and create that sensation where you literally cannot put the book down.
Another cliché is the cliff-hanger. The most effective are those at the end of the chapter where the beginning of the next chapter does not follow on from it. This means the reader must continue into the unknown, completely unaware of when they might find the answers to the burning questions inside them. However if done wrong, the reader can quickly lose interest and stop reading. An author must give away clues throughout a book in order to give the reader sufficient satisfaction.
Some books have very little in the way of a story line. In these, emphasis is placed on the rich descriptive text; it can almost be seen as a love affair with words. These books have to be exceptionally well written in order to be accepted. There is nothing to cover up any weak spots; every word has to be perfectly placed.
For me the best books are those with a huge twist at the end. The effect is largely lost is someone even tells you that there is a twist. The best ones are when something absolutely unexpected happens. Not the general cliché twists that you can always see coming, it has to be original.
Novels are not the only type of literature that exists. There are a huge number of factual books around, from educational books to travel books. One thing in all of these has changed. The writing of all styles of books has become increasingly sensational. Gone are the days of Adam Smith’s “The wealth of nations” being best selling books amongst the young economists. Books such as “Freakonomics” and “The undercover economist” are much more popular. Essentially the principles inside the books are the same – the writing style however is completely different. I can also guarantee that the amount if economic theory is vastly superior in books written in the same period as Adam Smith. Freakonomics and other such books bring the basic principles of economics into a format that anyone can pick up and read. This accessibility is highly desirable to the masses, many of whom would like to be experts on nearly everything.
This desire for more knowledge and simplification of otherwise hard to understand principles can be seen in the vast range of books “‘for dummies”. There is a book for almost anything, and the range has become hugely successful. Factual books are now being written under the same principles as fictional books. The same techniques are used to keep the reader interested.
However, in modern society there seems to be less and less time to sit down and read a book. Books have taken a back seat to the likes of the internet and other quickly accessible media. Therefore books that are being published need to be very attractive to read in order to have any chance of selling at all, let alone selling well. Buying any type of media seems to be a dying breed thanks to the huge resource that is the internet.
All this change is not always a bad thing. Although, obviously there are people losing out on money, the fact that all this information is so easy to come across, means surely we are becoming a more clued up nation. We can now hear about news events from the other side of the world just seconds after they have happened.
Consumers are functioning in a different way. Products are being given away for free, or for virtually nothing, over the internet. This has been most prevalent recently in the music industry with the free release of several high profile albums. Also more conventional industries such as TV have taken on this principle. Starting with BBC, now all of the terrestrial TV channels have internet sites where you can stream and download episodes from that week for free. This has been in response to the success of youtube and other such sites and the problems that they have caused the Television industry. However, instead of cowering away and fighting these problems they have embraced the change and made a success of it.
The incentive for giving products away for free mostly revolves around advertising (excluding the BBC). Advertisers pay more for adverts which are seen by a large number of people. Adverts that commence in between a popular television show such as friends at prime time will cost considerably more then an advert placed at 2 in the morning. When a company gives a popular product away for free, it immediately increases the demand for it. High demand, means higher advertising revenue, which can pay for the products which are being given away for free.
This however only works if people pay attention to the advertising. Much advertising is subconscious; however, if the economy is doing badly and there is a negative wealth effect on the consumer, then if the product is a luxury item they are unlikely to buy it despite the prevalent advertising. This however may not be true if it is a product which they needed to buy anyway, but due to the advertising they decided to change which brand they bought, which would have made the advertising successful. If people do not respond to the advertising on free products, advertisers will withdraw their campaigns, there won’t be any funding for the free products, and therefore it will be the end of the age of free products.
If the items being advertised through free products are luxury, it could be argued that you save no money, or even lose money through the process. For example; an ipod is being advertised through a product that is being given away for free, such as an album of music. The album would have cost you say £7 in the shop. Having seen some advertising you decide you would like an ipod which costs you £150. You are now worse off by £143. You would have to download a further 21 albums to have made all of your money back. This is easily do-able, but did you really want those extra 21 albums? And during the course of downloading those further 21 albums you may see advertising for other products and make another 2 purchases. Maybe some new trainers for £49 and a new kettle for £28. For those two purchases you would have to download a further 11 albums to make your money back. So instead of buying an album for £7, you now have 32 albums, an ipod, new trainers and a new kettle and have spent £236. Some consumers would think this was great, saying they have managed to get 32 free albums for buying things they enjoy having. Others would look back and be annoyed at themselves for spending so much money. Whichever way you look at it, it shows that free products may not actually save you any money, but could possibly cost you a great deal.
The huge increase in communication over the last few decades has had many positive effects. As I mentioned before, people are more aware of the happenings around the world, and also within their own country. As a nation we have become more politically active – more people are voting, and there is a genuine interest in what the government is doing. This however cannot be wholly attributed to the availability of press. The recent downturn in the economy has meant people are concerned about the future, and are taking a proactive stance. When things are going well, very little is attributed to the current government, yet when things start to go wrong, it’s their entire fault. The same can be said about many peoples view of God. When things are good in their lives, they forget him, yet when things go bad they blame him.
Due to the nature of the digital world, almost everyone is easy to get hold of. People in office jobs have 3 instant ways of communication. They have their work email, a mobile phone and an office phone. If at his or her desk, each method will get you through to them immediately. The most important of these is the mobile phone. The vast majority of people carry their mobile phone around with them all day every day. This means it is incredibly difficult to get away from work, or a difficult situation, or just to have some time alone.
Time alone is now a lost commodity. Although you may be alone, you are actually effectively with every single person who has your mobile number -any one of them could ring you up at any time. This could be the reason for the break-up of many relationships. There is no escape and no respite for couples. Everyone needs time alone, no matter how in love with someone they are, but these days this is very difficult to achieve. Even when you are at work your partner has the capability of ringing you. In fact a lot of people spend most of their working day on the phone to their partner. Also if there has been an argument, often all that needs to happen is for each person to take some time alone to calm down and logically think about the situation, realise who was really at fault and that it doesn’t matter anyway. This process can be completely ruined by eager partners anxious about how the other one is feeling.
The same principle applies the other way. Some couples do not spend enough time together. Many people have dinner in front of the television every day, which means they miss out on vital communication time. Also often when couples finally do manage to get some time alone, they can easily be interrupted by a call from a friend or a child sick mother.
As a nation we need to learn to switch off everything. People are not relaxing properly anymore which can be seen in the huge rise in the stress recently. Switch off your mobile, unplug the landline, turn off the computer and relax your mind properly.
It’s when you start messing with the format of your work that you know you have run out of literary steam. Adjusting the typeface and font-size to make it just right, and making everything perfectly aligned. No longer are the words positively fighting to get out, the passionate flame that first inspired you to write has been temporarily extinguished. You know its bad when you start to check the word count every 5 seconds to see the size of your achievement. My personal pitfall is scrolling up and down the document basking in the mass of words on each page. So for that reason this is where I will end.
Generally, the likelihood of someone reading a book all the way to the end relies on the first few pages. Very few people will press on through an uninspiring first and second chapter, unless a friend has recommended it to them with the advice that the start is slow and it heats up later. Many novelists will commence with a chase scene if the book is an action thriller or a well constructed descriptive piece about a love interest if the book is a romantic novel, and so on. The author is always trying to reel the reader in and create that sensation where you literally cannot put the book down.
Another cliché is the cliff-hanger. The most effective are those at the end of the chapter where the beginning of the next chapter does not follow on from it. This means the reader must continue into the unknown, completely unaware of when they might find the answers to the burning questions inside them. However if done wrong, the reader can quickly lose interest and stop reading. An author must give away clues throughout a book in order to give the reader sufficient satisfaction.
Some books have very little in the way of a story line. In these, emphasis is placed on the rich descriptive text; it can almost be seen as a love affair with words. These books have to be exceptionally well written in order to be accepted. There is nothing to cover up any weak spots; every word has to be perfectly placed.
For me the best books are those with a huge twist at the end. The effect is largely lost is someone even tells you that there is a twist. The best ones are when something absolutely unexpected happens. Not the general cliché twists that you can always see coming, it has to be original.
Novels are not the only type of literature that exists. There are a huge number of factual books around, from educational books to travel books. One thing in all of these has changed. The writing of all styles of books has become increasingly sensational. Gone are the days of Adam Smith’s “The wealth of nations” being best selling books amongst the young economists. Books such as “Freakonomics” and “The undercover economist” are much more popular. Essentially the principles inside the books are the same – the writing style however is completely different. I can also guarantee that the amount if economic theory is vastly superior in books written in the same period as Adam Smith. Freakonomics and other such books bring the basic principles of economics into a format that anyone can pick up and read. This accessibility is highly desirable to the masses, many of whom would like to be experts on nearly everything.
This desire for more knowledge and simplification of otherwise hard to understand principles can be seen in the vast range of books “‘for dummies”. There is a book for almost anything, and the range has become hugely successful. Factual books are now being written under the same principles as fictional books. The same techniques are used to keep the reader interested.
However, in modern society there seems to be less and less time to sit down and read a book. Books have taken a back seat to the likes of the internet and other quickly accessible media. Therefore books that are being published need to be very attractive to read in order to have any chance of selling at all, let alone selling well. Buying any type of media seems to be a dying breed thanks to the huge resource that is the internet.
All this change is not always a bad thing. Although, obviously there are people losing out on money, the fact that all this information is so easy to come across, means surely we are becoming a more clued up nation. We can now hear about news events from the other side of the world just seconds after they have happened.
Consumers are functioning in a different way. Products are being given away for free, or for virtually nothing, over the internet. This has been most prevalent recently in the music industry with the free release of several high profile albums. Also more conventional industries such as TV have taken on this principle. Starting with BBC, now all of the terrestrial TV channels have internet sites where you can stream and download episodes from that week for free. This has been in response to the success of youtube and other such sites and the problems that they have caused the Television industry. However, instead of cowering away and fighting these problems they have embraced the change and made a success of it.
The incentive for giving products away for free mostly revolves around advertising (excluding the BBC). Advertisers pay more for adverts which are seen by a large number of people. Adverts that commence in between a popular television show such as friends at prime time will cost considerably more then an advert placed at 2 in the morning. When a company gives a popular product away for free, it immediately increases the demand for it. High demand, means higher advertising revenue, which can pay for the products which are being given away for free.
This however only works if people pay attention to the advertising. Much advertising is subconscious; however, if the economy is doing badly and there is a negative wealth effect on the consumer, then if the product is a luxury item they are unlikely to buy it despite the prevalent advertising. This however may not be true if it is a product which they needed to buy anyway, but due to the advertising they decided to change which brand they bought, which would have made the advertising successful. If people do not respond to the advertising on free products, advertisers will withdraw their campaigns, there won’t be any funding for the free products, and therefore it will be the end of the age of free products.
If the items being advertised through free products are luxury, it could be argued that you save no money, or even lose money through the process. For example; an ipod is being advertised through a product that is being given away for free, such as an album of music. The album would have cost you say £7 in the shop. Having seen some advertising you decide you would like an ipod which costs you £150. You are now worse off by £143. You would have to download a further 21 albums to have made all of your money back. This is easily do-able, but did you really want those extra 21 albums? And during the course of downloading those further 21 albums you may see advertising for other products and make another 2 purchases. Maybe some new trainers for £49 and a new kettle for £28. For those two purchases you would have to download a further 11 albums to make your money back. So instead of buying an album for £7, you now have 32 albums, an ipod, new trainers and a new kettle and have spent £236. Some consumers would think this was great, saying they have managed to get 32 free albums for buying things they enjoy having. Others would look back and be annoyed at themselves for spending so much money. Whichever way you look at it, it shows that free products may not actually save you any money, but could possibly cost you a great deal.
The huge increase in communication over the last few decades has had many positive effects. As I mentioned before, people are more aware of the happenings around the world, and also within their own country. As a nation we have become more politically active – more people are voting, and there is a genuine interest in what the government is doing. This however cannot be wholly attributed to the availability of press. The recent downturn in the economy has meant people are concerned about the future, and are taking a proactive stance. When things are going well, very little is attributed to the current government, yet when things start to go wrong, it’s their entire fault. The same can be said about many peoples view of God. When things are good in their lives, they forget him, yet when things go bad they blame him.
Due to the nature of the digital world, almost everyone is easy to get hold of. People in office jobs have 3 instant ways of communication. They have their work email, a mobile phone and an office phone. If at his or her desk, each method will get you through to them immediately. The most important of these is the mobile phone. The vast majority of people carry their mobile phone around with them all day every day. This means it is incredibly difficult to get away from work, or a difficult situation, or just to have some time alone.
Time alone is now a lost commodity. Although you may be alone, you are actually effectively with every single person who has your mobile number -any one of them could ring you up at any time. This could be the reason for the break-up of many relationships. There is no escape and no respite for couples. Everyone needs time alone, no matter how in love with someone they are, but these days this is very difficult to achieve. Even when you are at work your partner has the capability of ringing you. In fact a lot of people spend most of their working day on the phone to their partner. Also if there has been an argument, often all that needs to happen is for each person to take some time alone to calm down and logically think about the situation, realise who was really at fault and that it doesn’t matter anyway. This process can be completely ruined by eager partners anxious about how the other one is feeling.
The same principle applies the other way. Some couples do not spend enough time together. Many people have dinner in front of the television every day, which means they miss out on vital communication time. Also often when couples finally do manage to get some time alone, they can easily be interrupted by a call from a friend or a child sick mother.
As a nation we need to learn to switch off everything. People are not relaxing properly anymore which can be seen in the huge rise in the stress recently. Switch off your mobile, unplug the landline, turn off the computer and relax your mind properly.
It’s when you start messing with the format of your work that you know you have run out of literary steam. Adjusting the typeface and font-size to make it just right, and making everything perfectly aligned. No longer are the words positively fighting to get out, the passionate flame that first inspired you to write has been temporarily extinguished. You know its bad when you start to check the word count every 5 seconds to see the size of your achievement. My personal pitfall is scrolling up and down the document basking in the mass of words on each page. So for that reason this is where I will end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
