Advertisements For Sale

The question now (a rather random one with an abrupt opening, but a question nonetheless) is whether the consumer is influenced by the advertiser or the other way around, and whether we as consumers are doomed to be held captive in the self-perpetuating cycle of consumption.

For starters, as a consumer myself (not a great one, but I hardly know anyone in the society I'm living in to live in a social vacuum and not consume at all), I would say that the influence of advertisements on the audience is irrefutable. It's impossible to be completely unaffected by advertising - they bombard us from all sides, offering prettily-packaged products that promise to improve our lives, offering us a plethora of identities to assume and define ourselves with. We align ourselves with the values and qualities of the products we consume. And what influences us to make our decisions are the advertisements that reach us through the various media: print, broadcast, and so on. Wait for your bus and you see a Juicy Couture advertisement, walk along the street and you see a sultry model showcasing a Fendi bag. The list goes on. We go about our lives with these as part of the scenery, so accustomed we have become to advertisements as a result of its relentless ubiquity. Quite possibly, as a result of this, we have become immune to them, or at least weary. I know I have. It's tiring to see models posing with a bag, or a faceless voice on the TV extolling the merits of a certain good, when it's not the only one in the market. Product differentiation has become such a vital part of selling a good that one can't help but wonder if there really is a difference between choosing one brand over another, when essentially the same type of good is being sold.

And what annoys me the most is how people think they are asserting the identity(s) they have carved out for themselves - given the wide range (or is it really as wide as we think?) to choose from, that advertisers offer us - when everyone basically dresses / eats / watches the same way, the same thing. On a personal level, girls everywhere I see wear shorts and gladiator sandals or leggings/jeggings and high-waisted skirts offered by a certain brand offering all-cotton clothings. Someone commented somewhere that women are the - and I quote - 'biggest herd-mentality consumer lemmings'. And I have to agree, indignation aside. Because these advertisers prey on our vanity, our constant desire to seek something to enhance our looks, make us more attractive, therefore improve our lives (I'm not sure how those are linked, but apparently that's how it is supposed to work). We grab our girlfriends, go shopping, queue in line at the dressing rooms, checking out accessories along the way, buy a dress, get excited about our new purchases (shopper's high) - life is good. And then weeks later, we decide that we're bored with our wardrobe and want something else to improve our lives, make us stand out. And the cycle repeats itself.

I'm not saying shopping and vanity are condemnable. No, to be vain is only human, and shopping is a great way to bond (or so I'm told). I just don't understand what we are supposed to achieve by doing that. I'm wondering if it's the society that makes us turn to an external agent to improve the quality of our lives, or if it's within us all along to constantly seek something better. But not to digress, it is because of this human psyche that advertisers are able to make a profit out of us. So is it us who sustains the consumer-advertiser dynamic, or the advertiser that makes us feel like we need to look elsewhere to fill up that internal vacuum (just to dramatise things a bit). Maybe it's fifty-fifty. It's a rather sit-on-the-fence approach, but I feel that it's a case of 'one can't live while the other survives' (sound familiar?).

Advertisers have to take their cues from us consumers. Without them, they wouldn't know how to persuade us to buy their products, and therefore how best to package them in a way that would entice us to buy their stuff. It's a rather chicken-and-egg conundrum - is it the consumer who first shows the advertiser his desires and his needs, or the advertiser who tells the consumer that, hey loser, this is what is lacking in your life, and this is the thing that can save you? Is it possibly even a more insidious case of upper class domination, wherein the dominant class(es) present the 'ideal' life that we should all want, all strive to attain? If that is the case, then we can't blame advertisers for preying on us so ruthlessly, almost unscrupulously, because we were willingly coerced by the dominant elites to want that sort of lifestyle - luxury cars, big house with temperature-control and state-of-the-art kitchen mechanism, LV bags and access to the trendiest clubs (I always thought that phrase sounded the very opposite of what it tries to sound. I mean, 'trendiest clubs'? Lame). It's not the advertisers' fault we are exercising herd mentality and consume their goods blindly, thinking that we are being unique but in fact looking and behaving just like everybody else because we are afraid of breaking away from the pack. And even if we did break away by dressing or behaving differently, it's just to seek attention by screaming, Look at me - I'm different, I have a more unique idenity, I stand out more! I'm not saying it doesn't work either way - I'm just saying that I feel it's pointless to put that much stock into identity-construction when all we're doing is re-presenting the identities and qualities that advertisers already have wrapped up in pretty boxes for us.

So are we doomed to being prisoners of this endless cycle of want? Not necessarily. I hold out on the hope that we won't, because of the weariness that might settle upon us eventually. Then again, advertising constantly evolves with market sentiment and trends, so advertisers can always find new ways of exploiting our desires and our weariness itself to sell us another product. I guess it depends on whether or not you're a cynic. But for now, every time I see an advertisement, I try to make a connection between what is presented to me - the qualities that the good is supposed to embody - and the intention of the advertisement.

Just my two cents' worth.

Literary Agent Nathan Bransford posed a couple of questions today: If you had a chance to dine with any author, who would it be? What do you think made Twilight so popular?

I don't know how he can just limit us to just one, because there are several I can list off the top of my head now. Maggie Stiefvater, Deb Caletti, Christie Hodgen and, of course, Sarah Dessen. I didn't list Megan McCafferty even though I love her for creating the Jessica Darling series, because Megan seems smart to the point of intimidating. She graduated from Columbia and her writing reflects it.

You'll notice there are hardly any male authors. I'm not being sexist, really, but I can't really relate to the characters created by male authors. This is not a generalisation, of course, but so far, for me, characters created by female authors are more relatable.

And as for what I think made Twilight so popular, it is probably the age-old idea of a forbidden romance. Because you see, people are more in love with the characters (namely, one of the male characters, or more) than Stephenie Meyer's writing. I'm not critic, but I'll say I've read authors who write better - though Meyer's improved a lot ever since New Moon - than her. But who doesn't love a good love story, after all, especially a forbidden one between two species, one of which is inhumanly (literally) good-looking?

So those are my two cents' worth. Have a great day ahead!

'Drift House - The First Voyage' by Dale Peck

I'm currently swept up in this children's fantasy titled Drift House: The First Voyage by Dale Peck, who's a reviewer and critic apart from an author. And can I just say that he's definitely qualified to critic other books, given how well he writes. There is, to coin a cliche, never a dull moment in Drift House (I apologise for that cliche!). It's packed with plot and it's just a rollicking ride.

In Drift House, three children (Susan, 12, and her two younger brothers, Charles and Murray) who are sent to live with their Uncle Farley. But one day (oh, gosh. "One day" - narration at its poorest. Another apology!) his house is swept away onto the Sea of Time. The children find out that the House is actually a transtemporal vessel that can travel through time. But the plot thickens when they find out that the House is headed for the Great Drain, a huge vortex in which there is no way out for one if he should be sucked into it. A mermaid called Diaphone appeals to Susan to help save her sister, who has been caught by the Time Pirates. But little did they know (really, I'm truly sorry for the cliche-laden post today) that making Susan rescue Ula lu la lu was part of their grand plan to stop Time by locking the doors to the Great Drain. The mermaids hold one of the three keys to the Drain, the Time Pirates another, and the other by Pierre Marin, an explorer and a scientist (he studies the effects of Time and is a human representative on the Island of the Past, where one of each and every species that ever lived resides).

Yes, so basically, the inhabitants of the Drift House were tricked by the mermaids to obtain the key from the Time Pirates and then the one belonging to Pierre Marin (which is in Uncle Farley's possession), so that they can lock the Drain and cease the flow of Time.

Like I said, rich in plot. And I love the setting and his writing style. Some children's authors tend to talk down in their stories - they think that just because they're writing for children they'd have to employ child-speak. Or teen-speak if they're writing YA. It annoys the hell out of me. But like Trenton Lee-Stewart, the author of The Mysterious Benedict Society series, Dale Peck doesn't see the need to talk like a child to appeal to his audience. His writing style is upbeat, like Eva Ibbotson (author of Island of the Aunts, Which Witch?, The Secret of Platform 13, Dial-a-ghost, and many others), and rational, like Lee-Stewart's. And the setting - it's out at sea! Who doesn't like a story set out at sea? Even for The Mysterious Benedict Society, my favourite so far is the second one, The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey, because it takes place aboard a ship. There's just something about the sea that makes for a good setting for a story. Maybe it's the novelty of it, or the immense potential for drama and adventure. Either way, I'm thoroughly enjoying Drift House, so much so that I've borrowed the sequel to it.

Other Books I'm Dying to Read:
1. The Six Rules of Maybe - Deb Caletti. I love every one of her books. 'Nuff said.
2. Linger - Maggie Stiefvater. The sequel to Shiver will be out in June this year. Can't wait! Shiver was so awesome (curious? read my post about it, if it helps) it made Stiefvater one of my favourite authors alread.

By the way, I am so enjoying Down With Love (every Saturday, 9pm, on Channel U). It just gets better and better with every episode, if that's even possible, since the first episode was already so fantastic. This drama totally shows the other side of Jerry, the cute funny side, and I'm loving him all the more (if, again, that is even possible). Everything about him puts me in a good mood.

Spent yesterday with my dad. We took a pretty long spin around town, with the rain pouring outside and the radio on (oldies). Another memory that I'll treasure. Dad told me about his childhood, among other things. He said the reason why he felt the need to take a picture everywhere he goes is because when one day, I'm not by his side, at least he'll have the photos to keep him company. I couldn't stop the tears from falling eventually.

Remember when I said uni was kind of slack - at least, slacker than jc? Well, it still is slacker than jc (hitherto, jc has been the craziest time of my academic life), but the work is definitely piling up.

I realised it's thanks to my two requirement modules (SE1101E - Southeast Asian studies - and SSA1203 - Singapore, Asia and American Power) that my days are more filled with schoolwork now. For each module, I have to write three papers. Add that to my EL3254 (Media, Discourse and Society) paper and presentation, as well as my EC1101E (Intro to Econs) tutorials and online graded practices, I'm a heck lot busier than I'd been last sem. And this is only 4 modules. Imagine if I took 5, like I was supposed to. (Which brings me to contemplating about next sem, where I have to take 6 modules, to compensate for the 1 module I didn't take this sem ... no, stop. It's too depressing.)

So I'm down with three papers (two SSA1203 and one SE1101E), and am working on my next SE1101E paper, which is due 2 March. I know, you must think I'm crazy to be stressing out so much when the deadlines for most of my papers are still a long time away. But I'm the sort who'd manically try to finish them all the minute I'm told what I'm required to do, just so I can avoid the mad rush towards the exams, where then I'd have to study for the exams and work on my papers. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Yes, so right now I'm riffling through online books, researching about the Mekong river and how it contributed to the construction of a collective identity (that was quite a lot of alliteration right there) of Vietnamese people before independence in 1945. The essay required us to explore how a place or a form of technology culminated in the formation of a collective identity of the people in a Southeast Asian country before or up to the point of independence. 1250 - 1500 words, at least one source about the place or technology, and at least two sources about the place, have to be academic.

The thing I don't quite understand is, what's the difference between before independence and up to the point of independence?

1300 words. Despite working on the paper the whole day yesterday, I've only managed to crank out 393 miserable words. This is unbelievably depressing. And what really makes me want to kick myself is that I've forgotten everything about the Mekong river that I studied in jc. That is, if I even paid attention. I don't remember listening in lectures when the Mekong conflict was being explained. See, that's what you get for being so disinterested.

Two and a half more months. Two and a half more months before Reading Week and the subsequent exams. And then no more horrible papers to write.

But then, of course, there is always next sem. Joy.

JD Salinger has passed away on 27 Jan 2010 at the age of 91.



I have only ever read one of his works, The Catcher in the Rye, and it's one of my favourite YA books. No-one has ever painted the disillusionment towards life in a young, optimistic heart as well as him. Holden Caulfield's cynicism stems from the opportunities he thinks he is denied, and the pretentiousness of the people around him. Nonetheless, it is obvious he is always ready to believe the best in people, and the world. It's tough to portray that through a character's actions and his voice, but Salinger nailed it, creating a hero readers sympathise with and root for.

Salinger, I read, was a very reclusive writer, never gave interviews or the like. I just wish he'd written more about Holden; I was so sorry when I got to the end of the story. Salinger's awesome, even better, imo, than Jack Kerouac (at least, comparing The Catcher in the Rye and On the Road).

On a different note, literary agent Nathan Bransford asked this question: How Did You Come Up With the Idea for Your WIP?

The thing about Shiny New Ideas (phrase coined from writer Erica Orloff) is that as a writer, you want to know how other writers get inspired, but can't explain it yourself either when others ask you. You shrug and say, "Everywhere, I guess."

For my stories, as Triv commented before, most of the conflict internally - literally. Most of my main characters are mentally disturbed, or at least detached from reality, because I think mentally disturbed people make good material for stories. I am interested in how some people retreat into a world they've created for themselves (is it a defense mechanism? or a delusion of grandeur that stems from a need to fill an emotional void? and so on) and how they straddle the line between detachment and insanity.

Red December Skies started as a setting (Marina South pier), then the character of Jerry, who was inspired by Lei of Meteor Garden. And then the problem of the protagonist, Ethel, just developed itself, and that's that.

I'm at Singapore, Asia and American Power lecture now (yes, multi-tasking as usual), and Prof Hamilton-Hart's telling us how NUS has, since its conception (or should I use establishment? oh, my diction's screwed today), adopted an American-style curriculum. Apparently, SM Goh had the vision of NUS as the 'Harvard of the East' (the point: instead of 'Oxford of the East').

Anyway, this semester is proving to be more hectic than sem 1, even though I'm only taking 4 modules. So. Many. Papers. To. Write. I don't even want to contemplate next semester, where I have to take 6 modules to compensate for the 1 module I didn't take this sem (I think I explained before that I dropped my NM module last minute because I decided to change my Minor from that to Econs).