Thursday 29 October 2009

Trying Desperately to get closer to an idea . . .

So it looks like I'm going to go with the Unbundling of Hypercard as a free do-it-all system around 1992.

Up until then it existed a tool for creating interactive content that was never meant to be simply printed or viewed but 'had' to be interacted with.

Early developers included artists and designers as well a people for who software development had previously been a subject shrouded in mystery and seemingly exclusive with overtly complex ideas and techniques acting as barriers for most people to get involved with.

Its true that the early BBC Micros, Sinclairs and Ataris had programmes free in magazines that you could type in and voila! get yourself a game - but, ultimately people simple typed these in rote and didn't really know what they were typing in - I know I did!!!

Hypercard came at a time (post modern) when we were re-evaluating our relationship to content and questioning the idea of a passive audience/spectator. A mini 'industry' grew up (with virtually no money changing hands!!) where thousands of people world wide were using it to create interactive content for education, art, design, information and entertainment. The key word here is interactive. were they laying the ground work for a future where interacting with content and media would become common place and second nature? Here was a technology that seemed to have no limit relative to our understanding of interactivity and content at the time. However, did it, in a determinist way, change our society/way of looking/thinking/acting/interacting? If so then why was it such a relative failure?

In 1992 Apple Computer Inc placed development of the software with Claris with a view to trying to find ways of monetising this software. IOW how on earth do we make money out of something we cannot seem to understand or easily categorise? Hypercard was not at this time dead - but the full software was no longer available and bundled free - you now had to buy it. Apple bundled a crippled Hypercard Player only instead.

This period coincided with the birth of the WWW, Mosaic and the rise of competing (non-free) software such as Director and Supercard. Incidentally the first 'major' web browser was violaWWW which ironically was based on Hypercard:

Viola was the invention of Pei-Yuan Wei, who at the time was a student at the University of California, Berkeley. His interest in graphically based software began with HyperCard which he first discovered in 1989. Gillies and Cailliau quote Pei-Yuan Wei on this discovery: "HyperCard was very compelling back then, you know graphically, this hyperlink thing, it was just not very global and it only worked on Mac...and I didn't even have a Mac" (p.213). Only having access to X terminals, he (in 1990) created the first version of Viola for them: "I got a HyperCard manual and looked at it and just basically took the concepts and implemented them in X-windows[sic]"

As ViolaWWW developed, it began to look more like HyperCard:
It had a bookmark facility so that you could keep track of your favourite pages. It had buttons for going backwards and forwards and a history feature to keep track of the places you had been. As time went on, it acquired tables and graphics and by May 1993 it could even run programs."


What I guess I'm heading towards in my first assignment is the way this event (which led to the demise of Hypercard) also allowed a wide range of software for a variety of platforms to emerge - all dedicated to creating interactive content. Hypercard was firmly entrenched in the physical media world of CDs, laserdiscs etc but at the end Hypercard 3.0 (never released) was being developed for online content. Future developments such as Flash, PHP, Java, AJax - even the likes of frontpage and dreamweaver would take this on and move interactive content online.

Hypercard allowed non-programmers to develop complex projects. people who had never really thought about interface, feedback, user experience, interaction etc were now free do so without needing to spend an eon learning complex technologies. However, the majority of Hypercard era content creators appear to have been graduate level educated.

Today with social networks, online communities etc the creation of content by just about anyone is something we take for granted. However, it is not quite in the same spirit. Much of the content we currently create is primarily a form of 'self celebration' - the 'look at me' culture. The value of this content I'm not sure about. I'm also not sure about whether people really do create 'content' or whether we are just constantly changing our definitions. Aren't people who spray paint on the side of tube trains creating content? Aren't the million and one school desks with "Gary 4 Tracy 4 ever" etched onto them content creation?

What does this really say about what content is and also about how we define content creators/authors/film makers? Is the difference between Transformers the Movie and a Youtube video of 3 kids pretending to be Optimus Prime simply a bigger budget?

Equally, its so much harder now to create online interactive content as the tools have once again become shrouded in mystery. Hypertalk was aimed to mimic plain english constructs within the limitations of the technology of the time. Try putting together a project comprised of chunks of Actionscript, Flex, Air and C++!!! We can create online interactive content relatively easily if we just use online templates or cut and paste bits of code from various tutorial sites. Unless of course our future as creators is one in which we generate content within clearly defined parameters to fit into a prebuilt infrastructure - a la iphone SDKs

It just doesn't seem to be the technology that is driving this. I spoke to an American Hollywood animation producer once and asked him why all ANimation software was the same? ie why were we using computers to just do what traditional animators did anyway when the technology was capable of so much more? He said, "Beats me. Every now and then we get these computer software companies coming to us and asking us what we want. We tell them what we do and they make us software that does just that!"

I'm still not sure if the birth or the demise of Hypercard is the critical incident here. I'm trying to argue that this 'new wave' of 'designers/content creators' were now creating interactive content that was designed from the start to be computer mediated. This was new - were there interactive media authors prior to Hypercard? (I don't know). It also started to put into place a lot of the things we now take fro granted online - from the humble browser back and forward buttons, to the sitemap, to the creation of content with little traditional computer skills. However, the stacks created back then feel different to what is going on today online.
I can't seem to bring myself to go with the technological determinism theory. It just doesn't seem to fit - and also every single experience in my life seems to point otherwise. Maybe someone can correct/inform/scold(!) me on this.

In terms of truths, I'm kinda sketchy here. I'm (in principle) with Kayo on the whole idea of subjectivism and there perhaps being no universal truths anyway. But:

Technology advances and we as a society adapt to and evolve with it?

The internet is free?

Stuff you find on the 'net MUST be true?

The net is democratic and gives us back some power?

Interactive is always better? If people are 'doing' things they learn much better?

Kids today are so much better with technology because they grow up with it don't they?

Everyone has broadband?

Ordinary people are creating interactive content - mashups, blogs, videos, flash sites?

If people get involved they can promote real change?

Actionscript/AJAX/Php/Flex/C++ are easy?

Standardisation is good?

I'm running out of steam for the moment.

I'm a bit ashamed to say that I feel kinda like the class dummy at the moment. I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere fast and don't seem to have moved on from a couple of weeks ago. I'm still having a hard time learning how to deal with and find things in the BU library!! I would appreciate people's thoughts.

Stuff going on today

I've been away for a few days and now trying to get back into the swing of things. In the meantime, A couple of interesting links 4 u!

"Celebrating 40 years of the Net - according to the BBC"

Awards offered for Mash-Ups!

Science enters the age of Web 2.0

Thursday 22 October 2009

The Ramblings of a Madman . . .

A few thoughts from a long time ago . . .

On Hypermedia:

“In the future everything will be fact for fifteen minutes.” - futuristic UK Magazine Cyber Times - New Computer Express, 15 September 1990

The idea of interlinked information being electronically stored and accessed at great speed from any place is attributed to Vannevar Bush in 1945.

Michael Sperberg - McQueen argues that only conventions make traditional books linear and not any inherent characteristics and many people agree that cross referencing and indexing amongst other techniques allow books to be non sequential.*1

Among them rages the debate between those who favour ‘ideal’ Hypermedia and those favouring ‘applied’ Hypermedia.*2 Ideal Hypermedia is a situation where the user browses through a system at leisure driven by his own curiosity and desire for information - such a system is characteristically visualised as a web-like structure. Applied Hypermedia is a system that is designed with the accomplishment of a specific task in mind. 'Pro-idealists' point to the availability and accessibility of a myriad choices driven solely by the user’s desire for information. The process of navigation is seen to represent ‘learning, creativity, collaboration and understanding’. Therefore Hypermedia systems should be an ideal way of learning compared to traditional methods of education.

Yet who is to make the decisions concerning what is to be contained in such systems? Could they not potentially invest themselves with more authority than the written word?

In its development, the written word acquired through the uses to which it was put the notion of truth. Even now (1989) , dictionaries are referred to in order to discern the correct way of spelling and encyclopaedias are used by schoolchildren to accumulate ‘facts’ just as a piece of metal exists in a museum in Europe that defines the exact length of a metre. This standardisation is an attempt at creating order and exercising control. Even books critical of the society from which they originate are forced to use the language and conventions of the established order.

The move to allow the user to modify systems can be interpreted as an attempt to disallow established interest from assimilating the concept thus making it possible to dissolve institutions

Users are only allowed to make the changes that the system has been designed to accept. Simply because a system appears to offer choice of information it does not necessarily follow that it is offering freedom of access and contribution. Such systems, since they allow a form of choice, appear therefore to be containers of truth because it is held that the information within them is created by people of all walks of life. As a result of there apparently being no exclusion policy, Hypermedia systems could come to be seen as unbiased, constantly updated (and therefore constantly corrected) networks of truth.

Since the system is not likely to be user created, how does the machine know what we might find interesting or useful. It merely presents its designers’ concepts and ideologies. In ‘Hyperland’, Douglas Adams’ own personal nightmare about interactive television, Adams is floundering among choices offered him by his system. Are, then, our choices being made for us? And in a consumer haven are we being sold something that we do not need?

In ‘The Missing Link - Why We’re All Doing Hypertext Wrong’, Norman Meyrowitz claims that to date all Hypermedia products are ‘monolithic and insular’*17 in that they demand the user to abandon his current computer environment in order to enter the Hypermedia space and HyperCard™ is no exception. *3

Hypermedia is seen as a metaphor for the brain’s associative networks *4. Therefore, it should aid learning since emphasis is placed upon the relationships involved and not the acquisition of sterile facts. Hypermedia systems would also engage the pupil interactively thus encouraging learning by doing and an understanding of links and relationships. . . . that gives a teacher the ability to produce interactive teaching modules - tailor made for the capabilities of their students. This could put an end to the churning out of homogenised groups of people only able to think in the ways in which they have been taught. Since no two individuals learn in the same way and at the same rate, each student can take the route best suited to his needs and capabilities whilst still remaining within a common framework. Students’ awareness of different ways of thinking can only aid development of individuality as well as nurturing negociative tendencies as more and more of their work involves collaboration. Interconnection of students could make life more accessible for those who find direct socialising difficult as well as exposing students at extremes of ability and culture spectrums to each other. Education, therefore becomes seen far more as a development of the individual and not as a saturation of things ‘they should know’. Associative learning helps the individual to constantly look for links and therefore enable him to apply lessons/ideas learnt in one part of his life to another. The process of learning by doing should be encouraged to nurture an active and willing participation in wider social issues and activities as the student assesses his position as an individual within a system of individuals. Interactive learning and the mix of media should suggest a more creative approach on the part of students and teachers increasing motivation and combating disillusionment as his study bears more relevance to their life. Ultimately the student should be encouraged to reflect how what they do affects their life and the environment surrounding them.

Information contained in Hypermedia systems to date (1989) has been of a different nature in its presentation to other forms of information. Much of this is due to the accessing of information ‘out of context’ . . . . In order to fit into the constraints . . ., information, whether it be text, sound, graphics or video, is usually presented in the form of small, short morsels or ‘chunks’. The information is thus iconic or alluding in the sense that it merely alludes to more information accessible in the system. As a result the information can often appear, ironically, to be stating the factual and lacking in any real depth or substance. . . . Information . . . is thus further ‘chunked’ to fit into a . . . experience.

By this alluding to more information, such a system itself can be interpreted as a tease in which the user gets a certain amount of information but never quite enough whilst what he is presented with hints at more ‘goodies’ within the system.

Perhaps a better system would be one where the user could explore motivated by curiosity but with a some direction and goal. Such a system would take into account the various contexts involved and languages that exist in those contexts rather than decree information to be universal, singular and discrete.

*1 Query about traditional, linear, bookbound text, Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Humanist discussion group, U35395@UICVM, 24 September 1988

*2 Hypertext and Intelligent Interfaces for Information Retrieval, Patricia Anne Carlson, from The Society Of Text - Hypertext, Hypermedia, and the social construction of information, ed. Edward Barrett, MIT Press, 1989. Carlson gives these two terms in the introduction to her paper.

*3 The Missing Link; Why We’re All Doing Hypertext Wrong, Norman Meyrowitz, from The Society Of Text - Hypertext, Hypermedia, and the social construction of information, ed. Edward Barrett, MIT Press, 1989. Meyrowitz describes a project entitled ‘Intermedia’ undertaken at the Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship at Brown University, to develop a system allowing information in one document to be permanently linked to information in any other. The system has interlocking protocols which if implemented in new software would allow those applications to be Intermedia documents and thus be linkable.

*4 Limited Freedom; Linear Reflections on Nonlinear Texts, Joseph T Jaynes, from The Society Of Text - Hypertext, Hypermedia, and the social construction of information, ed. Edward Barrett, MIT Press, 1989.

On Technology:

Each technology has been cited by commentators and the public alike as being markedly different from any other and has given special impetus to the rejuvenation of claims regarding the inevitability of technological change, its causal effect upon society and our relationships to each other and to events and situations around us.

. . . it is much more relevant to view technology as being the product of intricate social relationships, values and interests and that one of the reasons why much of the hype concerning computers has not materialised in a concrete form is that rather than the technology being inevitable, the technology was seized upon and its uses directed by certain groups within the social structure . . .

technological determinism and symptomatic technology

. . . by Marshall Mcluhan*5 who attempts to illustrate how a new technology demands different forms of approach and sensual organisation from its predecessors and that this difference in the way that we are obliged to interact with the technologies leads us to take up new ways of organising ourselves and gives rise to new kinds of priorities.

Symptomatic technology, on the other hand is an attempt to understand the complex techno-social relationship by viewing the development of a particular technology as being a result of changes that are already taking place within society. The technology once discovered would then be accepted and put to use by society. In other words, under this view the technology does not stimulate new relationships as above but offers us media for stimulating new ways of life.

Though superficially, the two views can be interpreted as being opposite and contradictory, they do share common ground. This is most notable in the common theme of separation between spheres of Research and Development and the wider social contexts. In both views the innovations are held to originate from discrete, isolated groups of individuals who by most accounts are operating in an environment that is distinct from the wider social one.

. . . argument used by proponents of technological determinism in reference to this period is that in no way was there any evidence to suggest that a market was forecast for computers and thus it would be clearly wrong to suggest that the continued Research and Development into these machines was prompted by economic investment. Therefore, it is argued, the technology itself created the huge markets that were to appear. Certainly no-one predicted the massive explosion in demand for the machines. Thomas J. Watson Snr., the President of IBM believed there to be no market and believed that it would require only one large computer to solve the worlds computational needs.

Such major groups like, for example, the government and businesses failed to perceive the benefits of distribution of these powerful commodities to society at large and instead feared for the possible disadvantages of making them freely available. As we shall see later the computer has entered everyday life in a form that makes it difficult to use them other than for the purposes envisaged by their manufacturers.

A technological determinist would pointed out how the introduction of microcomputers into the home gave rise to the birth of many new industries and ways of looking at our relationship to ourselves and society such as increased leisure time, the drive to do things for ourselves and indeed the emphasis put on democracy itself. A symptomatic technology viewpoint would argue that the technology existed and was seized upon in a consumer environment by entrepreneurs and marketed as a commodity thus giving rise to new industries and so embodying Schmookler's statement 'Innovations are made because men want to solve economic problems or capitalise on economic opportunities'*6

Computers were now being marketed as essential to life in contemporary society as well as being the focal point of a culture promised since the sixties. Most people at this juncture still had no idea of what a computer was but were being told how the machine could help them with their finances, planning, entertainment and the education of their children; being enticed to buy computers for what they were supposed to potentially do for the way they led their lives not how they would affect them.

The gap between government and individual participation now seemed to widen, the seventies being really the last era of the major social protests against policies of government. The eighties saw a disillusionment with the way in which so much of everyday life appeared out of control of the individual or boring and tedious

Advertising was building glossy, desirable images of artifacts and lifestyles that people were persuaded to aspire to and to spend their lives searching for. It was the age of American soap operas, transsexuality and glamorous popular icons in the media and traffic jams, ‘nine-to-five jobs’ for the public. The government's idea of laissez faire was taking hold and the microcomputer emerged out of and back into a culture where it was believed that the individual must have complete autonomy over his life. The computer was cited by people often desperate to find some way of being able to transcend or improve the quality of life, as being the key to true democracy and individual control and choice since isolated microcomputers could be shown to be able to communicate over distance by being linked to a computer network. The implication was that established institutions would disappear since the connection of microcomputers made it impossible for any one concern to gain advantage. It could be said that the early computers were for many a means of owning something over which they had direct control and could alter to serve their needs. Despite a mood of growing neuroticism people could feel more creative and confident of their own identities and place in the world as a result of being able to gain mastery over these machines and come into contact with others opening up avenues of their lives. Even this itself harks back to the invention of the telephone and the subsequent communication model it was to become. The microcomputer was used as a means of furthering modes of communication that were seen as necessary by groups dependent in maintaining touch and control with a society expanding at a frantic pace but whilst using the models now accepted by telephone. The concept of its content did not at this juncture come into play.

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand the implications for control, exploitation and expansion particularly by Kling’s Private Enterprise and Statist models where the organisation’s interests take priority. The development of computers is, and always has been, funded and guarded jealously by, in the main, the military, multinational corporations and governments and is carried out at high security research centres or prestigious universities which are still dominated by the higher social strata and thus are sites for the perpetuation of the domination of computer technology by those classes. It can be seen that the the private enterprise and statist models enjoyed a considerable advantage here and it is not enough to say that the computer would soon be used to any social need since the direction of innovation and the ways in which they are put to use are most likely to serve the needs of the most powerful and their needs are more likely to get priority and thus it is with computers. Thus development is dependent upon the relationships between groups and their needs rather than being inherent of the technology.

Despite a modern belief in human rights and civil liberties, the Statist and Private Enterprise views retain most direct power over computers whilst often simply paying lip service to other interests such as the Libertarian and Neo-populist models . Computers are complex in the extreme and it is not (easy) for just anyone to create one. This together with the high cost of the technology which itself can be interpreted as an attempt at exclusivity is means enough to make its actual implementation easier for the resource wealthy.

Norbert Wiener*7, the founder of cybernetics, links the concept of communication and control since control, irrespective of the object of that control, is dependent upon communication between the controller and the controlled.

The fact that everything can be digitised and sent via cables has not, as predicted, led to the crumbling of existing media and institutions. When competition is sensed the first option is to try to ban it as the press tried with radio and if that fails then option two is to buy it as is the case with the current wave of cross-ownership of press and cable television. The potential for democratic global connectivity suit primarily the libertarian and neopopulist supporters but the producers and providers of the machines see these as secondary concerns. Most existing global communication networks rely on long existing modes of communication like telephones and mail. Williams argues that in the case of broadcasting and television*8, 'It is not only that the supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content.' The same could be said of . . . in that the ability to globally link is available but as yet the uses of them and the needs to which they should be applied have yet to be identified and the determinist view that these facilities will generate a social structure that will centre around their inherent characteristics is clearly false. Ithiel de Sola Pool declares that the technology dictates its form but not its content of application*9.

Few of us actually have any idea how to make a computer do what we want. We have to buy a machine designed with specific capabilities by companies and then we must choose from a range of software which limits us to the confines of the parameters of the software and so even widespread availability of powerful microcomputers will not allow one to enter the telematic arena on one’s own terms. The keepers of power are hidden and so computers have been built to disallow confrontation since all use of them must be within limits acceptable to the computer’s built in repertoire. The machine does not query anything outside this, it merely rejects it as an error. Thus, one is forced to comply. We are adapting to a technology whose current structure is imposed upon us by unchallenged forces and ideologies that have been with us long before the notion of the powerful microcomputer. The machines are built with specific uses or types of uses in mind that, using Kling’s categories, support private enterprise and do not conflict with statist views whilst at least satisfying libertarian demands and being marketed as neopopulist and systems concerns. The drive to make people computer literate is not purely one feels, a distribution of skills and tools but also a dissemination of the culture and ideology embedded within this technology.

All this has been due to human beings. The machines are potentially capable of immense benefits to society as is any technology. No one doubts that telematics could potentially broaden our horizons and improve the quality of our daily lives but we must realise and be aware of the social context within which we and they exist so that the wool is not pulled over our eyes.

*5 Mcluhan, M, 'Understanding Media'

*6 Schmookler, J. 'Inventions and Economic Growth'

*7 Wiener, N. 'The Human Use of Human Beings'

*8 Williams, R. 'The Technology & The Society'

*9 de Sola Pool, I. 'Electronics Takes Command'


Wednesday 14 October 2009

A Possible Critical Incident

Remember the laserDisc?

Good old laserdiscs! they were rubbish but, I just used to like the way they looked - it kinda felt like you had your own rock n roll gold disc!

My introduction to
Hypercard was purely by accident. I was totally lost on my BA (they wanted me to paint, hack bits of ice and generally do things that could properly be called 'Art') and happened to wander around (actually moped around) the building and stumbled on the head of computing in his office (Head of computing back then meant something entirely different to what we understand by the title today - sadly). he was unboxing some new Mac Plus's and there were packages all over the floor. I strolled in and started chewing the fat but he was clearly busy. I absent mindedly picked up the odd package here and there and gave it a lazy once over.
That's when I spotted a box with Hypercard written on it. I asked him what it was - I don't know why the name resonated with me. I think by now he was just keen to get rid of me and get on with his unboxing so he just said, "God knows. take it if you want, see if its of any use."

I took it home (why I don't know as it would be nearly 10 years before I could afford my first Mac!) but I read the manuals from start to finish that weekend and it was like a tiny light in the back of my head suddenly flared.

I want to consider the decision to bundle hypercard with ALL macs as the critical event/incident. The way that it led to countless people like me over time and all over the world doing things that hadn't even been considered by the makers.

I've currently got stuff buzzing around in my head regarding stuff like Alan Kay, Englebart, Ted Nelson, Vannevar Bush, Dynabook, Palo Alto, Xanadu, Marc Andreason, Scripting vs programming, OOP, universal interfacing, Glick, fractal toys, the early GUI adventures!

oh, and of course Bill Atkinson!

I was just so struck back then on how powerful Hypercard was. How it didn't feel like a tool. How no-one really knew what to do with it. How it was free! How for the first time there seemed to be something for creatives to allow them to do 'stuff' on and with computers instead of just using computers to do what we already did via traditional means. How computers were not computers but extensions of ourselves, our minds and our creative impulses. How we 'negotiated with them' rather than 'used them'. How it spawned a whole generation of startups making videodiscs, Interactive CDs and just about anything you could think of.
How it questioned the very ideas we held dear about artist/creator/author and our relationships with user/viewer/interactor. How the machine became a transformation mechanism, a display vehicle and a creation engine.
How early internet acces for me via telnet allowed me to download regular periodicals like Tidbits in Hypercard form that I could query.
How it gave us the idea of extension via XCMDs and XCFNcs. How in the early stages of the web huge numbers of sites proliferated solely for the purpose of creating, selling or just giving away their Hypercard products. How ground breaking games like Myst were created with it. How rock stars like david Bowie and Peter Gabriel flocked to it to create interactive CDs. How typecast guys like Mark Hamil made new careers on interactive games built on Hypercard. Did I mention the Residents' Freakshow?

So much involved rethinking our beliefs about ownership, about how meaning is created, about relationship, about non linearity and about information that is separated and distant.

You could be an artist and create software! How astonishing was this? Beautiful code! Who would have thought?

Through all this it never felt like a tool. Perhaps this is why I have so much trouble with Flash and Actionscript. More than any other software I've ever used Flash feels like a tool. It also re-separates artists and designers from coders.

To this day I still cannot think of a single thing that Hypercard could NOT do! There was a real sense that talent and skill might in the future earn legitimate money. That talent and skill was focussed on 'lone gunmen' and not big multinationals.

did it all end in 2004? (actually, long before then). Or has it sown the seeds for what we are experiencing now and the future that now awaits?

The bit I'm kinda sketchy on is the post nostalgia bit i.e. what happened next. Would the web have worked out the way it did if there weren't already community of Hypercard / Supercard users able to grasp the new world order?

'Feel free to comment . . . but please, if you must throw things, enough with the onions already.

Friday 9 October 2009

Wednesday 7 October 2009

Dick Dastardly Ate My Hard Drive . . .

I’ve been feeling ill today. Actually I’ve been feeling ill for two weeks now. The worst thing is the time honoured tradition that all men have of classifying feeling sorry for yourself as one of the worst but somehow truly deserved symptoms.

Today, it kept me off work. Today my MA began. Today my favourite Lacie (now owned by brand BeckhamTM )external firewire Hard drive died. That’s 3 things. Unable to see properly, unable to breathe regularly and unable to stand on my feet for more than a few minutes at a time I added panic to my list of symptoms as somewhere in the bowl of ready brek ® that my brain had become i could see a strip of punched tape that said – you have 3 things to think about.

I dealt with this all by trying to find someone or something to blame. I had my suspicions. These were heightened when I logged onto the MA home page and saw 3 posts added – count them, 3.

I suddenly felt like I was ten again. The house would be totally quiet (isn’t it amazing how the old victorian house with holes in it you lived in when you were really poor as a kid was so much quieter than the house you now live in as a pillar of the community?) since my parents would be at work and my brothers and sisters would just stay in bed. Saturdays I would come down to the living room and turn on the black and white t.v. set to see Swap Shop with a pre Deal or No Deal Noel Edmunds. The tv set itself was a peculiarity. My dad would always go the local Rumbelows to buy an ex rental TV which we would then carry home between us. How weird that everyone in our world (ie within 3 miles of our house) knew the name Rumbelows and also where the shop was – even if they’d never had any contact with the company. We all just knew. Our communities passed down knowledge via the spoken word like some ancient native American tribes. Anyhow, The TV® would weigh around 1 tonne with the remote weighing in at a further 2. Oh, but Swap Shop! How amazing was this mash up of cartoons, swaps, programmes, phone chat, pop and films. We even thought Cheggers was cool – although some of us had the nascent beginnings of an idea that this man may be what adults sometimes referred to as a buffoon.

Anyway, Noel (www.noel.com) would speak to someone on the phone and then say something like “We’ll be right back after Wacky Races”. Then some kind of weird magic happened where real people (albeit with hair that later on I would realise contravened not only the geneva convention but also the general theory of relativity) stopped and these cartoon people started. That was the thrill. Trying to work out how it was done. Boffins. I didn’t know what the word meant but I’d read it in a few Enid Blyton novels and figured it had something to do with smart people. Years later I would have another life changing experience when I found out that television also came in colour – I was like Neo:

neo: “what’s wrong with my eyes?”

morpheus: “You’ve never used them before”

But hell, here they were Dastardly, Muttley, Penelope, the lot. I loved Wacky Races. The fact that I so enjoyed a cartoon about sabotaging other’s people’s cars in order to cheat to win a race is a little disquieting. But god, it was funny. I loved the cars. I loved the characters. I couldn’t wait to grow up and do it for real! Having been brought up in a very strict first generation Asian(asian indian, asian pakistani, asian chinese, asian japanese, asian other, none of the above) home I knew it was wrong to sabotage someone else’s chances and I knew it was wrong to cheat in any kind of competition. But god I loved it. I never really wanted Dick Dastardly to win but deep down I watched and watched to get to the bit where good old Muttley would do his trademark (TM) laugh. Every week Dick would do something to one car and when the starting gun went off there would be one car left at the start with its wheels rolling down the road and its occupants choking in the fog of the other cars now a mile ahead of them. I always kinda felt sorry for them. They never ever won – and they never figured out it was the stereotypically evil looking guy whodunnit.

Then Noel would be back and another week would separate me from Dick’s next dastardly plan.

As I logged on today there I was. Ten years old and on the starting line with all the other Wacky Racers. That’s when my beloved Lacie gave up the ghost. Right then and there. It was my favourite drive. And because it was my favourite drive I bestowed upon it a strange and utterly baseless aura of somehow being better, faster and more reliable than any of my other drives. I never backed it up. To my shame I never backed it up.

But this was my favourite drive. We’d been through good times and bad together and no way would it be so selfish as to let me down like this. I suspected sabotage. Foul play of the dirtiest kind. Foul play of the kind that only a cliched villain clad in black with a twirly mustache would dare to do. This villain had taken his wrench (having tied yet another helpless maiden to a railway track and rubbed his hands together – presumably from the rope burns) and sabotaged my drive. Sabotaged my chances!

So right now, I’m using some FBI (a subsiduary of News International) software to analyse the photos of everyone on the course in my quest to find that twirly moustache.

I know the truth (TM) now. One of you is none other than Dick Dastardly. And you ate my hard drive. You and your dog.

Or it could just all be this rather delightful medication . . .