The Age of Earthquakes was more than interesting; it conveyed and spoke its story in a hybrid form of graphic novel and a Youtube video, something we may be more familiar with today. The main devices for meaning were obviously imagery, neologism, and syntax. The novel was more like a Powerpoint than a novel and it's debatable whether or not it was effective—sometimes I’d be able to follow along with the narrator’s explanation of the fear of individualism, and sometimes I’d get lost and confused by the narrator’s stream of thought, like on the Todd pages (242-244). But, this confusion isn’t without purpose; it can possibly model our minds today as a result of technology, or the way we perceive information or how easily we won’t question info given to us. For the amount of content page to page, every little detail has meaning, not one little image or expression was left in the wind—which we don’t see in every conventional novel.
The authors’ opinion isn't entirely disagreeable, either. If there’s one thing I agree with, it’s the rapid development of technology and its potential to alter human behaviour. I know that some people are glued to technology, that’s undebatable. We’ll check a text going to the bathroom or play a game on our phones; however, the authors’ pessimistic tone throughout the novel implies the thought that technology is the biggest negative influence on human behaviour. The issue with this claim is that the novel generalizes the entire human population with technology. While this claim may be true to some, it’s unreasonable to assume that every human with access to technology will become dependent on it. Even if its true, it's unfair to assume that the dependency on technology is most definitely a bad thing.
Myles Aquino, 4B, Courtney Hendricks
(Word Count: 295)
Pastiche:

Love your take on the book. I think your title is innovative and reflects the use of signs as makeshift language in the text. I also agree with your claim that the authors portray technology in a primarily negative light. I think this book lacks any meaningful rebuttal to strengthen its assertions.
ReplyDelete