FEED

How does the future look like with all the technology that advances at such a fast pace? In the novel Feed, Anderson depicts a world in which computers are not outside, but in one’s brain. Through a neural chip implanted at birth, called feed, people get access to all the available information, watch the news and movies, see all the new advertisements and make purchases, and talk with other persons. Is it not the world that we all dream of? We could be permanently connected to a net with a much larger scope than the Internet. We could get all the latest information and become “supersmart without ever working” (Anderson 47).

What more can we ask for? Actually, the main character in the novel, Titus, explains that “the braggest thing about the feed, the thing that made it really big, is that it knows everything you want to hope for, sometimes before you even know what those things are” (48). But is this the greatest or the worst part about a feed? This passage brings to light the real state of things: mega corporations such as Feedlink or American Feedware control what people wish for and can even create false desires. Personally, I found it very intriguing whether Anderson is criticizing a society that relies too much on technology, or, rather our own reality in which advertising dictates our preferences. How many ads make us feel as if were not able to live without one specific product? It is questionable whether it is really good that companies are able to predict what we will need or want or are they only giving us the impression that this is the thing that can complete our existence. In the latter case, the goal would be to make us all buy more and, thus, spend more money.

Somehow I think that many are aware of the negative influence of advertisements, but no real action is taken. An interesting perspective in Feed is that of the character Titus: “Of course, everyone is like, da, da, da, evil corporations, oh they’re so bad, we all say that, and we all know they control everything. I mean, it’s not great, because who knows what evil shit they’re up to. Everyone feels bad about that. But they’re the only way to get all this stuff, and it’s no good getting pissy about it, because they’re still going to control everything, whether to like it or not.” (48, 49) Is this our own excuse? We admit that ads are evil but, at the same time, we believe that there is no point in rising against them and the media giants behind them, because we could never succeed. Anderson seems to condemn this exact feeling of complacency. After all, many claim that advertisements do not alter their choices, but when the “revolutionary” pair of jeans appears on a huge billboard, they will all rush to buy it. Or, have we reached the moment when the mega corporations that aim to modify our decisions have become a necessary evil?

Anderson, M.T. Feed. Cambridge, Mass.: Candlewick Press, 2002. Print.