Who do we blame?

Most readers, including myself, would probably describe The Circle's influence on its society as a strong oppression of the rights of privacy. In fact, I may have even referred to it's oppressive nature in previous blog posts. However, as I started thinking about what exactly oppression means, I began to understand the more truly frightening aspects of this novel.

This is how Google defines "oppression":

An "unjust treatment or control" implies that there are two forces at work: an oppressor, and an oppressed. However, when we look back at The Circle's influence on society, at least in the beginning of the novel, there is no authoritarian control over anything. The Circle merely acts as a tool that is available for the public's use.

What makes this frightening to the reader is that the entire conflict over privacy within the novel is actually self-inflicted by society. No one forces the public to use The Circle's services. There are no crying children and mothers fleeing from the omnipotent grasp of The Circle's almighty hands. People willingly subject themselves and their private lives to The Circle. It is this earnest desire for more Circle products that drives the popularity and success of the company.

Of course, as the book progresses, The Circle does begin to take on more the role of the oppressor. This is first noted when government officials start being subjected to wearing SeeChange cameras around their necks. But wait. The only forces initiating this change again come from society itself. The public demands that their governors "go transparent," and eventually any government officials who choose to stay private are excluded from the rest.

Even the development of newer, more invasive technologies, such as the child tracking program, are only a result of public desire for them. So while the reader may view The Circle as an antagonistic force throughout the novel, there really is no antagonist, unless you count society. 

More questions...

Now, not all of society is on board with this Circle takeover, as evident in the case of Mercer. But when an overwhelming majority wants something, do minority voices like Mercer deserve to get in the way of them? Should they be protected or does majority rule? 

Only we, the readers, can see the double-edged sword of this society's motivations, but how is such a problem solved? If society acts as both the oppressor and oppressed, is there even a problem that needs solving? It's like asking whether suicide or obesity should be a crime. 

Ultimately, I don't think Eggers' novel is exactly a precautionary tale. It's more like a view through the eyes of a happily obese person who is content the way they are. The Circle lets readers glimpse into a possible world that they realize they never wish to be a part of. 

The Treasures from the Trench

            When Stenton, the business savvy, ruthless, executive takes the Circle submersible down into the Marianas trench he emerges with some very distinct animals: a shark, an octopus, and a father seahorse with countless tiny offspring. These creatures are not only interested and described with great detail, but provide some of the most potent symbols in the text.

The Shark

            The shark is a terrifying specimen. Transparent, angular, and bloodthirsty, it devours everything put in a tank with it before digesting it with unnatural speed and efficiency.

            The shark represents the company itself.

            The Circle is somehow strange, terrifying, beautiful, mysterious, austere, and efficient all at the same time. It astounds people with its new innovations and keeps the world on its toes. It eats up the competition and it destroys any political opposition. People love it, but people really should fear it. Its power makes it as interesting as it is unnerving.

The Octopus

            The octopus is constantly changing to fit its surroundings. It can be small enough to fit in ones hand in one moment, and in the next fill the whole tank. It is curious, it is smart, and it is powerful.

            The octopus represents the human race.

            We, as humans, are always looking for the next frontier, the next venture, the next invention that will change the way the world works. We adapt to our environment readily and change as the need arises. We are curious, we are smart, and we are more powerful than most people would believe.

The Seahorses

            The seahorses are tiny transparent creatures that seem too weak to survive. They are slow swimmers whose only real skill is hiding, yet somehow they continue to survive.

            The seahorses represent our dreams.

            Each and every person in the world has dreams. Unfortunately most dreams are just that, and will never come to fruition. Yet somehow, dreams live on. No matter how unlikely or even impossible they are, one dream creates a thousand more, which live on and change the world in which we live in new and unexpected ways.

The Ecosystem

            Eventually Stenton decides to combine the three types of creatures in the same tank. The scene that ensues perfectly symbolizes the interaction of the three separate symbols, and paints scarily accurate picture of the new order of things.

            When the creatures are put together the shark finds and eats every single other living creature in the tank without mercy.

            In this way, the circle consumes everything. It consumes the humanity and the dreams of the humans it is meant to serve. It dehumanizes as it brings the world closer together. It consumes everything that is not a part of it, and uses the resources of the outside world to continue growing stronger, till it is the only thing that remains.

Mercer vs. The Circle

Periodically throughout the book, Mae leaves the Circle campus and goes home to visit her parents. This is really the only glimpse the reader gets of the world outside the immediate Circle community. Every time she goes home, Mae also runs into an encounter with her ex-boyfriend, Mercer. He is one of the few surprisingly nonexistent characters in this world who opposes the Circle's ever-increasing foothold in society.

Mercer is characterized in a very interesting way, which often makes him seem like he's out-of-date with the times, and quite a bit of a social outcast. He builds chandeliers out of antlers for a living, writes letters by hand, and dresses like a lumberjack. None of these make him an appealing character, and Mae's perception of him as am ignorant, stubborn, and jealous ex almost make it seem like Eggers was trying a little too hard to prove the acceptable social norms in this Circle-dominated world.

However, because Mercer is the only voice of reason in this world, I couldn't help but connect with his logic and descriptions of social media. I even found some striking contrasts presented between his dialogue, and those of the Circle staff.

Mercer

"Here's the thing, and it's painful to say this to you. But you're not very interesting anymore. You sit at a desk twelve hours a day and you have nothing to show for it except some numbers that won't exist or be remembered in a week. You're leaving no evidence that you lived. There's no proof" (Eggers 260).

The Circle 

"Not good. I know that. But I was at the circus event and that was great. So great." [Mae] 

"It was great, wasn't it? And it was great to see you there. But we have no record of you being there. No photos, no zings, no reviews, notices, bumps. Why not?" [Dan] 

"I don't know. I guess I was caught up in the--" [Mae] 

"Dan sighed loudly. "You do know that we like to hear from people, right? That Circlers' opinions are valued? "(Eggers 178).

There is a startling contrast between these two passages. Mercer tries to tell Mae that everything she does through The Circle is not actually real or important. The smiles, reviews, and zings exist only in The Circle, and without it, they mean nothing. Mae's boss on the other hand, tries to show her The Circle's point of view, that everything that hasn't been documented hasn't actually happened. Despite the fact that Dan actually saw Mae at the company party, he says that there is no record of her being there because there is no electronic trace of her. The very definition of what is or is not "real" has changed in this society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercer

"You know what I think, Mae? I think you think that sitting at your desk, frowning and smiling somehow makes you think you're actually living some fascinating life. You comment on things, and substitutes for doing them. You look at pictures of Nepal, push a smile button, and you think that it's the same as actually going there. I mean, what would happen if you actually went? Your CircleJerk rating or whatever-the-fuck would drop below an acceptable level! Mae, do you realize how incredibly boring you've become?" (Eggers 261).

The Circle

Josiah leaned forward. "How do you think other Circlers feel, knowing that you're so close to them physically, that you're ostensibly part of a community here, but you don't want them to know your hobbies and interests. How do you think they feel?" 

"I don't know. I don't think they feel anything." 

"But they do!"Josiah said. "The point is that you're not engaged with the people around you!"
"It's just kayaking!" Mae said, laughing again, trying to bring the discussion back to a place of levity. 

Josiah was at work on his tablet. "Just kayaking? Do you realize that kayaking is a three-billion-dollar industry? And you say it's 'just kayaking'! Mae, don't you see that it's all connected? You play your part. You have to part-icipate" (Eggers 188).

The contrast between these two passages is more ironic than anything else. Just like in his previous quote, Mercer tells Mae that living through The Circle does not substitute for real life. He tries to make Mae understand that there is more to life than she's allowing herself to see. Josiah, on the other hand, makes the same point for a completely different reason. He tells Mae that she is not engaged with the people around her, because she isn't participating in the Circle's online community enough. Her physical presence and experiences with people are not enough to constitute as "engaging." Mae is bombarded with these differing views, but somehow manages only to see logic in what she wants to see, The Circle.

After looking back at these passages, I realize that one of the things that annoys me most about this book is the lack of Mercer-type characters that exist in this world. Eggers completely ignores the fact that everyone does not think alike in real life, and that large groups of people have differing views. Mercer is alone in his way of thinking, while the rest of the world jumps right on The Circle's bandwagon.

--Sanjukta

Synthesizing Freedom and Safety

           The technology brought up in The Circle has the power to do so much good in the world, but also so much evil. Not only do the SeeChange cameras make it easier to catch crime, but also new ideas are being presented all the time to stop all crime and make the world a safer place. Unfortunately each development that is meant to protect people also strips away their freedoms, and could potentially cause more problems than it solves.

SeeChange: The First Step

            The SeeChange cameras (described in an earlier post) are a great way to limit crime. They can be placed in any public area and will see and hear everything in that area, while being almost undetectable. This advancement makes it very easy to identify and track down the culprits of crimes, and eventually starts to act as a deterrent for future crimes.

            These cameras also make it very easy for anyone to track the movements of any person. That not only is creepy and a violation of privacy, but also could lead to different types of crimes than the ones it may be stopping.

TruYouth: Child Tracking

            I’m sure many parents would say that they would love to know where their kids are at all times. With TruYouth, that is finally possible.

TruYouth is a program that imbeds a microchip into a child’s bone which tracks where that child is at all times. This technology was introduced to stop kidnappings. If a child can always be tracked, they cannot be taken from their parents and locked up and tortured for years on end. Even if a child is taken, their parent can see where they are and law enforcement can arrive on scene, hopefully before too much damage is done.

This program, while it was designed with a positive purpose in mind, is not just dangerous, but a huge violation of trust. Part of growing up should be getting to make mistakes, try new things, and yes, occasionally, break some rules without your parents knowing. This technology would make it impossible for children to do anything without their parents consent. This may seem like a good thing to some, but this technology would take away a lot of what it means to be a child, and that is something that really should be protected.

The possibilities for harm if the technology got into the wrong hands are even more sinister. The technology could easily be used by a government body to track the exact movements of all their citizens, giving them immense and unregulated power over them. This technology could also be used by pedophiles and other child obsessed people to find the exact whereabouts of children.

Can Freedom and Safety Exist Together?

            Although safety could be considered a freedom, it dramatically inhibits another important freedom: freedom of privacy. Both of these examples presented in the story could be very important in stopping crime, but yet both have tremendous drawbacks.

            So, can freedom and safety exist together? I think so. But the right balance has to be reached. The real question is: How much privacy are we willing to give up in order to feel safe?

When Would You Stand Up? (Part II)

Stage 3: Transparency

            The next stage of the takeover seems like the most important, innovative, and exciting thing to ever happen in the world of politics. Suddenly, political leaders from every democracy the world over are “going transparent.” This means that they wear a camera around their neck that sees and hears everything they do.

This technology is most widely proliferated among politicians, but some “normal” people are going transparent as well, including Mae. This transparency makes her an instant worldwide sensation. She always has millions of followers watching every minute aspect of her life. She becomes not only becomes a world famous role model, but also becomes the eyes and ears of the world within the company. Whenever they release a new product or hear a new pitch, Mae is there, and her watchers instantly give feedback.

Although most people probably wouldn’t want to go transparent, it’s hard to see the drawbacks of this technology for those people who don’t want to participate. Why would it be bad for politicians to have their lives on display? What politician would dream of doing any sort of shady dealing or go against the publics interest if they knew they were being watched? As Mae notes, being transparent helped her become her best self. She knew she was being watched and was an important role model, so she played the part well, and felt like a better person because of it.

This technology, while it may seem to have the most positive effects, also has some monumental drawbacks. Although politicians are supposed to work for the people, by publicizing their every move they are constantly at the mercy of their constituency. Our country was created as a republic, not as a democracy for a very specific reason. Humans are hot headed and often are not prepared to make an informed decision. We should be able to trust our elected officials to do what is right without having to look over their shoulders all the time.

            This technology is also dangerous among normal individuals. Any individual who is transparent is constantly forced to think about any insignificant acts in their lives. They lose their individuality because they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary. Transparent people become little more than robots, designed to please their watchers.

            So would you stop it? Would you push for politicians to go back to their private dealings? Would you protest as people around you became transparent? The scary thing is, I don’t know if I would. Although I wouldn’t want to be transparent, I don’t think I would mind if other people did. I wouldn’t see all the drawbacks, I would only see the positives, and that is where the issue lies.

Stage 4: Full Participation

            Finally, at the end of the book Mae “completes The Circle” with a revolutionary idea. To get political participation up, let people vote through their circle accounts. And to make sure everyone has a voice, just force everyone to get a circle account. Although a bit unorthodox, the government contracts work out to private companies all the time, so how is this any different?

            Since everyone is the country will have a circle account, everyone can be a part of every decision. Politicians will instantly know how the public feels about an issue, and eliminate the need for lobbyists or polls. It could even eliminate congress, as every person can vote using the new “Demoxie” (democracy with your voice and your moxie) technology to respond to every issue.

            Suddenly, mob rule is a reality. The whims of millions of undereducated people with volatile emotions take over the country. The idea of full participation and voting, which the government so desired, suddenly makes the government itself obsolete. And, of course, The Circle controls the whole operation.

            This is probably the point where people would step up and say it has gone too far, the circle must be stopped. But by the time the public gets to that point its already a law, and dissidents will be fined or imprisoned, or worse.

Conclusion:

            The scariest part is, no matter how clear the flaws in The Circles system of sharing and transparency are to an outside observer, the system appears perfect to most participants till it’s much too late.

            So where would you step up and try to stop it? When would a large enough group to make a difference step up and try to stop it? When you think about the changes that were made, the drawbacks to each of them, and how you would react, it’s easy to see how such a system could form without any real opposition. Perhaps Eggers’ analysis of our culture and how we react to loss of freedoms isn’t as inaccurate as we would like to think…

Josiah and Denise

Josiah and Denise are two HR employees at the Circle who have an extensive talk with Mae about "community" about a quarter of the way into the book. I found it to be perhaps one of the most infuriating parts of the book. I've taken out some excerpts here for discussion, from pages 179 to 189. Why is it that these passages are so horrifying? They reveal some of the values of the society in The Circle. (Blogger doesn't permit indenting, pardon the formatting errors in the quotes.)

One

“And that sharing with other young people whose parents suffer from the disease [MS]—do you see the benefit in this?” [asked Denise.]
“Absolutely.” [replied Mae.]
“For example, when you heard your dad had a seizure, you drove, what, a hundred miles or so, and never once during that drive did you try to glean any information from the InnerCirclers, or from the larger OuterCircle. Do you see that as an opportunity wasted?”
“Now I do, absolutely. I was just upset, and worried, and I was driving like a maniac. I wasn’t very present.”
Denise raised a finger. “Ah, present. That is a wonderful word. I’m glad you used it. Do you consider yourself usually present?”

This is a society that would choose social networking about an emergency over physically responding to the emergency. I can pretty concretely infer that if someone got hit by a bus in this Circular world, we'd see pictures of the individual's mutilated body and "zings" (much like tweets) of the incident before anyone would rush to help the injured individual. I, personally, hope this shift in ethics never occurs.

 Two

"Can you talk about what you did on Saturday?”
“It’s embarrassing,” Mae said. “Nothing.”
“Nothing meaning what?”
“Well, most of the day I stayed at my parents’ house and just watched TV.”
Josiah brightened. “Anything good?”
“Just some women’s basketball.”
“There’s nothing wrong with women’s basketball!” Josiah gushed. “I love women’s basketball. Have you followed my WNBA zings?”
“No, do you have a Zing feed about the WNBA?"
Josiah nodded, looking hurt, even bewildered.

Why do something when you can talk about doing it? Whereas in our world, language more so shapes reality, in this world language can create reality in the mundane and literal sense. This turns out to be not such a good thing...

Three

"Okay. Let’s go to Sunday. Tell us about Sunday.”
“I just drove back.”
“That’s it?”
“I kayaked?”
Josiah and Denise registered dual looks of surprise.
“You kayaked?” Josiah said. “Where?”
“Just in the bay.”
“With who?”
“No one. Just alone.”
Denise and Josiah looked hurt.
“I kayak,” Josiah said, and then typed something in his tablet, pressing very hard.
“How often do you kayak?” Denise asked Mae.
“Maybe once every few weeks?”
Josiah was looking intently at his tablet. “Mae, I’m looking at your profile, I’m finding nothing about you and kayaking. No smiles, no ratings, no posts, nothing. And now you’re telling me you kayak once every few weeks?”
“Well, maybe it’s less than that?”
Mae laughed, but Denise and Josiah did not. Josiah continued to stare at his screen, while Denise’s eyes probed into Mae.

Again, we see that it's almost unreal if it's not recorded. These standards are excepted so much so that Josiah and Denise become angry when Mae questions them. Let's remember, in the Circular world, Mae's the one who's wrong here.

Four

“I’m sorry,” Mae said.
Josiah rolled his eyes. “No, I mean, this is a tangent, but my problem with paper is that all communication dies with it. It holds no possibility of continuity. You look at your paper brochure, and that’s where it ends. It ends with you. Like you’re the only one who matters. But think if you’d been documenting. If you’d been using a tool that would help confirm the identity of whatever birds you saw, then anyone can benefit—naturalists, students, historians, the Coast Guard. Everyone can know, then, what birds were on the bay on that day. It’s just maddening, thinking of how much knowledge is lost every day through this kind of shortsightedness. And I don’t want to call it selfish but—”
“No. It was. I know it was,” Mae said.

That about sums it up: privacy is selfishness. Text (in a broad sense) is necessary for a "knowledgeable"  and unselfish world. To me it's quite scary to think that doing anything privately would be considered, really, a sin.

The values in the society of The Circle are more different from ours than they first appear. I shouldn't judge, but it's impossible not to: these values are horrifying.

Written by Seth

When Would You Stand Up? (Part I)

When would you stand up? (Part I)

Throughout the book I kept wondering why didn’t more people stand up and try to stop the panopticon that they were helping to create. Why did everyone become so enamored with the social networking sites? Why did the whole world decide to place the SeeChange camera’s everywhere and share them with everyone? Why did the world give their wholehearted support to the transparency movement? And how could people sit idly by as The Circle took over the government?

Stage 1: The Networking

            This stage at first glance seems pretty harmless. You go out to a restaurant and you share a picture and/or “zing” a review. You go on a hike with your friends, and you recommend it on a chat room. These little updates not only show your friends what you’re doing, but also provide them with information that could inform their decisions on where to go this weekend or what to buy.

            But this technology causes issues. People begin to feel left out. They know if their friends are hanging out without them, and they can’t do anything about it. People begin to see social networking as a replacement for real experiences. Why hike a mountain when you can see the view anyways? People begin to see their online lives as more legitimate than their real ones, and personal relationships suffer as their number followers/friends on their particular website grows ever greater.

            So would you stand up and say no?? Probably not. Although it may not be an ideal world, I don’t think there is any harm is sharing your views/life experience, and if people want to be boring and live through their online life, that’s their prerogative.

Stage 2: Surveillance

            The SeeChange camera facilitates the next stage of the takeover. Not only can you see almost anywhere in the world with brilliant detail, but anyone else can too. There may be people who place SeeChange cameras without sharing the feed publicly, but it doesn’t seem like that particular method really catches on. The technology is instantly hailed a revolutionary way to limit crime, while giving people a chance to see the world.

            But this technology too has many issues. People are more and more likely to “see the world” from the comforts of their own home, rather than actually go out and do it. This is helpful to people with disabilities, but for the rest of the world just makes people lazy. People begin to have literally every aspect of their lives on display to the whole world, as the cameras are placed in their houses and shared to all of their friends.

            But would you stand up and say no? Would you fight for the camera’s to only be allowed in public places? Would you use the cameras to see a foreign country rather than save up to visit yourself? Would you put the cameras in your home, allowing them to see every insignificant detail of your daily life?

            Now this is the stage where I started to get a little nervous. I could see the benefits of the spread of such technology, but the loss of privacy started to scare me. I think this is the point where I would start to break away from the pack. I wouldn’t let the cameras in my house, and I would probably make the few cameras that I did place private.

            Yet the rest of the world, at least in Eggers’ mind, wouldn’t follow suit. The SeeChange cameras took over the world by storm, and with them, another layer of privacy and personal freedoms was removed.

(This blog post will be continued in part II, coming later today).

What is the significance of a circle?

Circles are everywhere. I didn't realize until I started looking, just how many circles I encounter everyday. It starts with little things. I wake up and put on my circular contact lenses, then go downstairs to eat some food off a circular plate. After I get ready, I turn some circular doorknobs, say hello to the circular sun, and get into my car with its circular tires. Then I drive off to school with my circular steering wheel. I could go on all day, but I'd end up talking myself in circles.

The circle is the most ubiquitous shape, symbol, or idea that has been instilled in humanity since ancient times. It represents everything. Our world, our sun, our moon, our stars, and even other worlds. Since I can't possibly discuss all of these symbols and connections in one blog post, let alone one lifetime, I'm going to discuss some of the few circular associations that I made with The Circle, and that Mr. Eggers may have had in mind when creating the idea for this book.


Equality

Circles are never-ending. No beginning, no end. This perfect shape lasts forever, and within this eternal ring, lies perfect equality. Every point on a circle is an equal distance from the center. Nothing stands out, and nothing is unfair. That's what The Circle strives for as well. Equality through knowledge, for everyone.

Everyone is equal here.

Unity/Exclusion

Correction, for everyone within the circle. While a circle represents equality, it can only do so by encircling a space, and excluding everything outside of it. Circles have been used historically as a form of protection from evil. No evil can cross the sacred line of a circle. Circles unify, and gain strength from the unity formed through equality. But this comes at the expense of exclusion. Anything or anyone outside the circle is lost from this protection and excluded from the community. This was the case in The Circle as well. Anyone who refused to be "in the loop,"-- anyone who didn't have a "circle of friends"-- was excluded from society. To the extreme, they were ultimately choked by the tightening of The Circle.

A magical anti-evil circle.

Poor guy, he doesn't fit in the circle.

Revolution

When we think of something "coming full circle," we often think of it as being right where it started. And when we think of a revolution, we think of dramatic change. But a revolution is the action of coming full circle. Think of the Earth, spinning on its axis in revolutions around the Sun. Every day, it starts the day facing the same direction, and every year, it ends up in the same spot. But through these days and years, so much changes dramatically. And in order for the planet to return where it once was, it must go through the cycle again. This is just like Kalden's realization in The Circle. He recognizes that the key to a better society isn't through a total upheaval of old ways and morals, but through changes that incorporate the qualities that made society strong to begin with, like the protection of privacy.

Life Cycles

Revolution is seen in life cycles as well. A tadpole turns into a frog, which lays eggs, which turn into tadpoles. In The Circle, Mae experiences a similar kind of transformation. She starts out as a newcomer to the Circle society, one who doesn't even see the importance of having a Circle account. But as she is exposed to the influences of people like Annie, Bailey, and her other co-workers, she begins to make the transition into a real Circler. As Mae gains popularity, she eventually overshadows Annie, and becomes a symbol of leadership at the Circle. Mae completes her circle of transformation when she imposes the Circle's beliefs on her parents and Mercer, in an attempt to plant the same seeds in their minds.

This is Mae, as a frog.

Knowledge

While there are an unending number of other connections that can be drawn about circles, the last one I'll discuss is calculus. Not just calculus, but math and science in general, derive so heavily from circles. Trigonometry, derivatives, integrals, limits, the Golden Ratio, even rectangles and triangles, all come back to the properties of circles. And it is through these very tools of mathematics that we know all that we do today. Architecture, nature, technology, space exploration, theoretical physics, biology. Everything relies on circles, and they are in every part of our lives, whether we recognize it or not. In The Circle, this is the ultimate goal: knowledge of everything. Just like circles are such an important part of our universe, it is The Circle's mission to infiltrate every part of society and every individual, in order to unlock the answers of the universe.

Conclusion

I don't know what Dave Eggers was thinking as he came up with the ideas behind The Circle. I can't know if he planned out all of the symbolism and underlying meanings that I discussed here. But it's clear that his decision to choose a circle as the symbol for his ideas was well thought out. I haven't even skimmed the surface of all the other possible connections that could be drawn. There are connections in literature (as seen in Seth's post about the circles of hell in The Inferno), religion, history, art, science, and in every part of our daily lives.

--Sanjukta

The Circle as an Inferno

There are some clear connections between The Circle and Inferno, that I briefly discussed in a prior blog post. I wouldn't like to go as far to say that Eggers "rewrote" Inferno because that would be rather far-fetched. It appears as if he used a structure strikingly similar to the layers of hell, but not much more, at least explicitly. I think examining the screens that Mae, the main character, is given for her desk reveals that a screen is much like a circle of hell, through which Mae falls during the first half of the novel. In the second half, the popularization of SeeChange, cameras which you can put anywhere for the world to see, throws the population into a metaphorical bottomless hell. In summary, we have six "circle" and then a bottomless pit, essentially. They are very different than the circles of hell in Inferno, which is why I am hesitant to compare the two.

Mae's Screens

First Screen: The screen that Mae first receives to communicate to Circle customers when she is a "Customer Experience" (customer service) worker.

Second Screen: The screen that may receives to communicate to other employees within the Circle.

"This one is for intra-office messaging. All Circlers send messages out through your main feed, but they appear on the second screen. This is to make clear the importance of the messages, and to help you delineate which is which. From time to time you’ll see messages from me over here, just checking in or with some adjustment or news" (52).

Third Screen: This screen is for social participation. It contains all social networks, with users within and outside of the Circle.

"The third screen is your social, Inner- and OuterCircle. But these messages aren’t, like, superfluous. They’re just as important as any other messages, but are prioritized third. And sometimes they’re urgent. Keep an eye on the InnerCircle feed in particular, because that’s where you’ll hear about staff meetings, mandatory gatherings, and any breaking news. If there’s a Circle notice that’s really pressing, that’ll be marked in orange. Something extremely urgent will prompt a message on your phone, too. You keep that in view?" (99).

Fourth Screen: Mae receives this screen when she is promoted. It's where more novice Customer Experience employees may contact her with questions. Her supervisor says:

"Whenever there’s a stumper and it needs to be bounced up to a more seasoned person, you’ll be there. You’re the veteran now. Does that make sense?" (146).

Fifth Screen: This is the screen on which Mae can take and control surveys to help analysts gather data.

"When Mae got back to her desk, a new screen, her fifth, had been set up just to the right of her newbie-question screen. She had a few minutes before one o’clock, so she tested the system. The first bell rang, and she nodded. A woman’s voice, sounding like a newscaster’s, asked her, 'For vacations, are you inclined toward one of relaxation, like a beach or luxury hotel, or are you inclined toward adventure, like a white-water rafting trip?'" (231).

Sixth Screen: This is the ultimate screen on which Mae can view SeeChange cameras of herself and everyone else.

"There were eight SeeChange cameras in Mae’s pod, and within hours of them going live, she and everyone else in the room were provided another screen, on which they could see a grid of their own and lock into any view on campus" (241).

The general trend is that as Mae gets more screens, her personal life and work life become more and more intertwined. With this, her life becomes more and more public, just like the lives of most people in The Circle. That's about as far as I am willing to go in connecting The Circle to Inferno: they have strikingly similar structures and a hell, but very different content.

Written by Seth

What's in a name?

I was looking for inspiration about a possible Circle post, when I came across this New York Times book review for the novel, which discusses some very interesting meanings behind the names of the characters in the book. Of course, it's quite common for authors to choose names that symbolize the ideals or personality of a character, but what surprised me were the connections within The Circle that I never would have seen had I not done some more research.

The main character of the book is named Mae (short for Maebelline) Holland. The first thing I personally thought of when Eggers introduced her full name was the similarly named makeup brand, Maybelline. Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline. This connection was brought up in the New York Times article as well, as makeup generally represents a degree of artificiality, or a mask. In the novel, Mae is constantly behind the mask of the Internet. All of her "friends" and "followers" only see her through a screen rather than seeing her true self. Mae also feels as if she's constantly acting to fit the role of the "perfect Circler" in order to be accepted at work.

Another noticeable connection to her name comes on Mae's first day of work, when Gina sets up a Zing account for her with the screen name "MaeDay." The similarly spelled word mayday is a well-known distress signal that derives from a French phrase meaning "Come help me." This is like a subliminal message to the readers, who feel Mae's silent suffering from the oppression around her, whether she realizes it or not. Mae is helpless to the pressures of The Circle. May Day was also the name of a workers' holiday that used to be celebrated in industrialized areas of the United States after the 1917 workers' revolution in Soviet Russia. This holiday supported communist and socialist ideas, and Soviet claims to equality. Coincidentally, The Circle and Soviet Russia have very similar logic, societal values, and desire for power.


While Mae's name carries the most significance and symbolism in this book, there are other characters whose names reveal pieces of their personalities as well. For example, Eamon Bailey, one of the three founding fathers of The Circle, was named that for a reason. Eamon is an old English name meaning "wealthy protector/defender," and Bailey comes from English roots meaning "public official," or "man in charge." Bailey also has connotations with a generous, humanitarian, and magnetic personality. These meanings together create a perfect representation of Bailey's role in The Circle. Known for being the most emotional and altruistic of the three founders, Bailey truly believes in the goodness of The Circle. He works hard to spread the limitless possibilities that could stem from it, and shows Mae the "right path" of truthfulness and transparency when she feels lost. Of course, Bailey is also a very wealthy man, and is the foremost protector of The Circle's mission and ideals.

Another character in The Circle with a hidden name meaning is Kalden. Of course, to those of us who have read the book, Kalden carries several more secrets than the ones lying within his name. Kalden comes from Tibetan origin and means "of the golden age." Now, this may be a bit of a stretch, but the first thing I thought of when I learned of his Tibetan origins were the Tibetan nomads that are known for roaming through the Himalayan mountain ranges. (My grandmother in India once told me a story about these nomads, so I don't know if others would jump to the same connection as I did...) Surprisingly enough, Kalden's character in the book fits the description of a nomad to a tee. Mae first sees him hiding in the shadows wearing a hoodie during a company party, and then again only in sporadic moments afterwards. When she searches for him in the Circle database, there is no trace of him at all. Then, when Kalden takes Mae through the underground tunnels of The Circle and shows her his secret cave-bed-hiding-spot in the heart of the company's darkness (hehehe...), he can be described as nothing other than a nomad.

Coming back to the actual meaning of his name, "of the golden age," there is even deeper symbolism. As Mae gets to know Kalden, despite his sporadically nomadic behavior, she learns that while he is an employee of The Circle, his mission and morals lie elsewhere. He warns Mae of the "completion of the circle," and how this will lead to an impending doom that will kill all privacy and individuality. Just like a Golden Age represents a period of peace, harmony and stability prior to a downfall, Kalden represents the warning that society is approaching this dangerous point-of-no-return.


While I don't have the time to do such an in-depth analysis of every character's name, these particular characters, and their relations to each other are what create the driving conflicts in The Circle. I've created a list below of the basic name meanings of some other characters, just because it's interesting to see how they represent themselves in the novel as well.

Other characters:

Mercer: "merchant" or "trader of textiles"

Annie: "grace, favor, prayer"

Francis: "French" or "free"

Tom Stenton (another of the three founders, CEO of The Circle): Stenton means "settlement on stony ground"

Tyler "Ty" Alexander Gospodinov (the first founder): Tyler means "layer of tiles" (he laid the groundwork for The Circle), Alexander means "defender of men"

Renata: "rebirth"

Alistair: "protector"

Dan: "judge" or "God is my judge"

Sabine: the name of an ancient Roman tribe that divided in two; one civilized city, and one mountain tribe

Jared: "a ruling, commanding, coming down"



--Sanjukta

Dualities in Public Opinion and the issue of Privacy

In today’s world, and the somewhat futuristic world of The Circle privacy, or lack thereof, is increasingly becoming one of the most important and controversial topic of the age.

Privacy in The Circle

Privacy in the world of The Circle begins as nearly nonexistent, and finishes as completely nonexistent.

Social networking has infiltrated even further into society in this strange yet familiar world. Circlers, such as Mae, are not just encouraged, but required to be active online on The Circle’s variety of social networking platforms. Anything done but not posted is cause for suspicion. Why hide something from people that they could enjoy, unless it’s bad? Mae, the rest of The Circlers, and the rest of the world are becoming increasingly enamored with sharing every aspect of their lives.

This over sharing is just the beginning, though. Eventually cameras with live feed posted on the Internet are placed almost everywhere in the world. These cameras give any person unlimited visual and auditory access to almost any place in the world. But perhaps this is a good thing? Crime rates go down, and people who cannot travel can finally see the world. Privacy is less, but surely there isn’t any issue yet?

The final stage is transparency. People begin wearing cameras around their neck that see and hear everything they do. Not only is this the new political craze, but “average” people, including Mae, become transparent as well, allowing everyone to see literally everything that goes on in their lives.

This lack of privacy is hailed by almost the entire world as revolutionarily beneficial. Only a few outcasts of society, such as Mae’s ex boyfriend and her parents reject the new order of things.

Privacy in the Modern World

Privacy is one of the most divisive and important topics of our generation.

The clearest illustration of this is the recent NSA scandal. It was disclosed that the government listens to the calls and reads the emails of normal Americans in an attempt to stop terrorists. The release of this data caused one of the biggest scandals of the modern era and instantly led to legal action.

Although people in general, and American’s especially, are becoming more and more willing to share intimate details of their personal lives, we balk at the idea of the government knowing insignificant details we share with our acquaintances.

Comparison

The juxtaposition of views concerning privacy extremely apparent, and makes me wonder if it was on purpose.

Perhaps the differences are meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of the modern era’s privacy view. We will share every aspect of our lives with a for profit company without a second glance, but live in fear of the government, a body created in service of the people, knowing any aspect of our lives. Is this because we chose to trust the company, or because we believe the free market can protect our secrets better than our elected officials?

I see the dualities in viewpoints as a clever comment on our societies somewhat dimwitted inconsistencies in the field of privacy. Perhaps this is what Eggers intended to do, or perhaps he was just disconnected with the views of society. Whatever the reason, I believe the issues of privacy brought up should not only facilitate a new perspective on our current times, but maybe even warn us about the possibility of future issues.

Does The Circle Fail?

Introduction

It's hard to determine an author's purpose without actually speaking to him or her. I've read some reviews of the book and an interview with Eggers (click here to go to it) and have determined that he was, in a way, rewriting 1984 or Inferno. Whether this was intended or not, I do not know. It's a timely coincidence that The Circle has connections to Inferno and Heart of Darkness. Eggers attempted to created a sort of "dystopia" to which we can relate. Readers must ask themselves, Is this where technology is taking us? Of course, if the answer could be yes then the average reader (not just a fantasy aficionado) would enjoy the book. But I've found the answer to veer toward no, which to me makes the book too fantastical for my liking. I think it comes down to society and what society values. This is something upon which I've merely touched in my previous blog posts.

The Circular World versus Our World

In interpreting the text, it’s easy to get confused by the issue of societal norms and ethics, in that we inherently suppose that the values of the society in The Circle are identical to those of our own society. Of course written by a member of our society, the book lacks any explicit explanation of the values of its society. In our society, we tend to value privacy, we tend to value individualism and independence, and we tend to value freedom. In the society of The Circle, over which The Circle has increasing control, the vast majority favors “freedom” and knowledge over privacy. To us, this is quite paradoxical: isn’t privacy a part of freedom? From an external viewpoint, that is the readers of the book, the society of The Circle is unrealistic and improbable. The thought of “People would never give up their privacy to this extent” is sure to pass through the readers’ heads.

That’s where The Circle is lacking. The readers are thrown into a society that they suppose to be a real, futuristic portrait of our world today. The fact that the book’s society is not like ours today, and, more so, the lack of any sort of transition into this world is what limits the book’s impact. We can’t worry about having to give up all privacy if we can’t see it as real. Most characters in the book that value what we value make an unstated, almost magical, transition into being full-blown members of The Circle society. Mae’s parents are the perfect example: they at first resist the privacy eliminating components of the Circle, but with the flip of a page, it seems, they have cameras up around their house to broadcast every second of their lives, just like the rest.

What causes this transition? How does it happen? These are the questions that Eggers fails to address. It’s precisely that which causes readers to think that the book is a harsh exaggeration of what may happen one day, as opposed to that the book is a very real possibility of our future. If the book began with a distant, fantastical society, readers would assume the book to be fantasy, rather than realistic fiction. The book makes the instant transition from realism to fantasy, and that’s unsettling.

The New York Times has this illustration for The Circle. I find it fitting.

Written by Seth

The Circle. Heart of Darkness. The Inferno.

The Circle and literary juxtaposition

I can't help but note some intense parallels between Conrad's Heart of Darkness, Dante's Inferno and The Circle. Is it any coincidence that the Circle is both the word for the major company central to The Circle and a part of Dante's hell? It's very possible, but I can't help but note such striking parallels between the three texts. Surely, one can argue that any two texts are related...but how distanced can that "relation" be before we're really just stretching reality? So, before I start examining these parallels, I want to emphasize that The Circle is not necessarily a rewrite of The Inferno. It can be seen as one though, as Dante's hell has become a sort of paradigm for "hell" in Western society since he wrote it. 

The Circle and Heart of Darkness

We've only read a bit of Heart of Darkness thus far, but I already see various connections with The Circle. The first is the premise that what the people (with "people" referring to the Company in Heart of Darkness or The Circle in The Circle) is right. They truly believe that what they are doing is best for humanity. In Heart of Darkness, in which the ethics are quite different than those of our contemporary society, the Belgians believe that colonization of the Congo is a beneficial process: the Congolese peoples will experience the fruitfully glorious presence of Christianity and civilization while the first world benefits from material resources. The Circle attempts to improve humanity through great technologies, specifically transparency. The Circle has great power over government and many individuals, and thus society as a whole. The Circle has control over society. Belgium has control over the Congo. Society has no choice (take a look at the politicians who are caught in "scandals" immediately after denouncing The Circle). The Congolese peoples have no choice. Mercer protests transparency and socio-centralization led by the Circle. He dies. We don't yet see an explicit parallel in Heart of Darkness, but it is nearly guaranteed that some Congolese protested at some point and was subsequently killed. There's a great parallel of irony too: the Congo was called, officially, the Congo Free State, and The Circle strives to expand freedom.

So how would the characters line up? This isn't as easy, but here's what I see:

• The Three Wise Men (the founders of The Circle) are very closely parallel to King Leopold II. They're not nearly as harsh, but they're the leaders of this movement that is believed to be good, but to us is not.
• Mae may be Mr. Kurtz. We haven't seen too much of Mr. Kurtz yet, so this is quite premature, but Mae represents what the Circle stands for. Does Kurtz?
• Mercer, he's like a disobedient Congolese. This results in his death.
• Annie and Ty (Kalden) are much like Marlow, as they question the ideals, future, and effects of The Circle.

Of course more parallels can be drawn, specifically within the plot, but that would require an entire book to explain.

The Circle and The Inferno

In class, we discussed Heart of Darkness and The Inferno. Logically, then, it's fairly easy to relate The Circle to The Inferno. So what makes Circular society so hellish? I think it's the utter lack of control people have over themselves, the true lack of independence. A number of the cons that Sanjukta discussed in her previous post can be connected to The Inferno. I may explore these connections more in depth later on.

Composed by Seth

Is transparency a good thing?

Transparency is one of the major central ideas in The Circle. From the glass walls and elevators in the Circle's office, to the philosophical theories of "truth" held by the Circle's founders, there are references to transparency on almost every page.

As the book goes on, this "utopian" society built on "truth through knowledge" begins to infringe on the rights and privacy of those who don't want to partake in it. This leads to several people getting hurt, and causes Mae, the main character, to look closely at the conflicting ideals of transparency vs. privacy.

When I first finished reading the book, I thought my views on this debate between transparency and privacy were pretty clear. Partly due to the surprising ending, and in some ways a result of growing up in a society where individual rights and privacy are so highly valued, my immediate response was strong. I couldn't imagine why people would ever give themselves up to being examined and watched by the whole world 24/7. 

However, after getting over the initial disbelief at the way the book ended (I won't give anything away, in case anyone wants to read it...), I started thinking about the core beliefs held by the Circle's founders-- some of which actually made sense. 

So, since my opinions on this issue come in waves, with various streams of thought that end up running in circles (I change my mind too often to keep track), I've decided to make a pros and cons list that shows both sides of the argument. 

Arguments for a "transparent" society:
(Many of these are the core beliefs of the Circle's founders, particularly Eamon Bailey.)

• In a transparent society, all knowledge is free. Knowledge brings you closer to the "truth." All humans have a right to know the truth. Therefore, all humans have a right to access the tools to gain any knowledge they wish.
• If every action made by a person is recorded or visible, all crimes, kidnappings, immorality, and corruption could be eliminated.
• If everyone has access to everything, people can be truly equal.
• All secrets are lies, which only distort reality in a way which hurts both parties involved. "Secrets are cancerous when kept within us, but harmless when they're out in the world" (Eggers 289).
• If everyone can see everything (even things that may be considered embarrassing in today's society), there will is no shame in any action except those that are immoral or dangerous.
• Transparency breeds productivity, therefore helping the overall economy, raising standards of living, and promoting growth.
• Transparency allows for true democracy, where people can see the effects of the decisions they make, instead of relying on blind faith for their leaders.
• If theft is a crime, privacy is also a crime. It steals from people the right to access knowledge.

Arguments against a "transparent" society:

• Privacy is a basic human right.
• There would be no place for those who choose to be private in a transparent world. This eliminates the right to choose what the world can and cannot see.
• Whoever stores the knowledge gained through transparency could corrupt the system and use it for their own gain.
• People lose the right to decide their own morals in a transparent world; society decides what is or isn't right. This leads to a loss of independence, because every action is taken for the opinions of others rather than oneself.
• When every action is constantly being watched and judged, it is easy for people to get hurt.
• People can become overwhelmed with unnecessary information, causing them to lose sight of what is important.
• Secrets are sometimes necessary to keep peace.
• Transparency eliminates the voice of minorities, who may not agree with majority opinions and morals.

Phew. Okay, so after looking at both sides of transparency, I'm still unsure of where I stand. There are such huge benefits to a transparent society, many of which our technologically driven society is already moving towards. With the use of surveillance cameras, tracking devices, GPS, and Google--none of which existed 100 years ago-- it's clear that we're infinitely more transparent today than we were in the past. We're moving towards a more transparent society whether we like it or not. 

These kinds of technologies make our lives easier, but they also take away bits of our privacy. The government can tap our calls without our knowledge. Our locations can be tracked through our cell phones without our knowledge. Is this fair? Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? I really don't know. And as is evident from this ridiculously long blog post, no amount of logical thinking or pro/con lists can truly determine an answer to this question.

So for now, we can only hope to continue on our path towards transparency while keeping an eye out to ensure that no one gets hurt along the way.

--Sanjukta