The Circle - Part 1 Join the Circle (February 2014)

[Deborah]

In part one Mae settles in to her new job. What do you think of her? What do you think of The Circle?
Is it clear that this book is meant to be satirical at the outset and if so how does that color how we come at the story and how we feel about the characters?

[Peter]

So where do you think this section ends? I realize you're listening to the audio book, but do you have a page number in mind? After all, we don't want to post spoilers for people who don't want them!

[Peter]

OK, something from the very first part of the Circle. You know that single sign-on that supposedly swept the web (the Unified Operating System)? That's been tried before (anyone remember Microsoft Passport?). It went over like a lead balloon. And there's TruYu which is basically a magical unicorn plot device, since there's no convincing way to make that work as described without new, world changing technological breakthroughs. Really, the whole background on how The Circle succeeded is a load of technical hooey. I suspect Eggers was throwing a bunch of vaguely plausible (to him at least) sounding words so he could get on with his plot. In a plot-driven book this might be excusable, but I found it threw me out of the story then and there.

[Peter]

Another point where Eggers seems to misunderstand technology: getting a new type of tablet six months before it's generally available means you're getting beta test hardware and software (if you're lucky!), and it will crash all over the place. That's not a benefit! With most sorts of products getting a early version is just sort of cool, with technology, not so much.

[Deborah]

For me the book begins or my reaction to the book begins at a meeting where people cheer the guy spying on his mother. Um.... from that point forward its impossible to take Eggers seriously.

[Casceil]

I've barely begun, but I am already baffled by why Maggie's good friend and past room-mate would put so much time and effort into making Maggie's first morning at work miserable. Burlap? Old computer and nasty cubicle? What was the point? Was this supposed to be funny? I already don't like that character.

[Deborah]

I also dislike Mae for being hateful about her old coworkers. I wish I got that sort of recognition and validation at work. I wonder if LIPA is hiring!

[Casceil]

Mae, not Maggie. Right. Mae did come in with a chip on her shoulder about being too good for her old job.

[Daniel]

Deborah wrote: "For me the book begins or my reaction to the book begins at a meeting where people cheer the guy spying on his mother. Um.... from that point forward its impossible to take Eggers seriously."

I had a few moments before that, but the video feeds were definitely a millstone around the neck of this book's credibility for me. I can see what Eggers is trying to get at, but the logistical nightmares around thorny issues like pedophilia and sex slavery alone are enough to make the head spin. My assumption going in was that there would be at least some modicum of plausibility or even basic research. I'm about halfway through, and am now wondering whether there was even a token gesture of even thinking these ideas through before hoisting them onto the soapbox.

[Deborah]

I am hoping that we get some input from people enjoying the book.

[Evelina | AvalinahsBooks]

the video surveillance part about the book made me cringe as well. there's this part where a public person puts on a camera to wear at all times (I won't give more details in the case of anyone seeing is as a spoiler). so when I was reading that, I was thinking - man.. am I the only one who asked the question about what she'll do with the camera when she goes to the bathroom..? it's plainly stated she will wear it at all times.. come on, Eggers - seriously?
then when they talk about posting cameras in beaches and absolutely anywhere else - I don't know, maybe I'm totally ruined as a human being here - but the only idea I get from that is that it's going to be a thousand secret porn channels on 'SeeChange' or whatever it's called instead of 'Universal transparency'..

then I also thought that TruYou would be a tragedy. it's kind of what China does with its citizens though, so I've heard.. you have to log on with your own name. I don't think that would be possible in the whole world, but it would be a tragedy if it actually happened. now that makes me shudder. not that I'm a troll and want to hide my actions, but.. hell knows. scary thought, right? and I mean, if it worked the way Eggers put it - weird creepy stalkers would be able to know where you bought your ice-cream yesterday and stuff.. I guess that's what creeps me out so much.

another thought about the circle that I find contradicting.. is that the circle absolutely won't accept introverts - the people who may go to events (like Mae first did) but just watch silently. at least half the world's people are introverts, and there's no way you'd make them post on their profiles 5 times a day without making it super stressful for them - and it's said that the Circle is all about not causing stress, they keep checking every week at the clinic.. how the hell does that even work? I don't see the logic here. what's even funnier is that the main founder of the Circle is clearly a hermit - an introvert - and yet it's condemned to be introverted and you "get called on the carpet" for this? sorry, Eggers. I just don't see that.

that said, if I had to post 5 times a day and answer hundreds of messages from thousands of coworkers (that I don't even really know), I would be damn stressed. it sounds horrible.. and I'm quite social and extroverted. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of an invasion of privacy this would be for an introvert.. ugh.

oh yeah, and there's another contradiction. in the beginning we are told that the campus is always full of people playing various sports and doing all those non-job activities during the day.. yet all the characters we're shown only work and cut their lunches short because they have no time (especially with the social networking requirements - I don't see how they would). so I get a quite natural question: who the hell plays those games? how..?

lots of things in this book don't seem to make sense, it looks like.

[Peter]

I had been planning on commenting on the problems with all the enforced social media and participation as well, but I wasn't sure how far into the book this particular topic went, but since Evelina has already broached the subject (thanks!), I feel free to comment.

The Circle is supposed to be a technology company. People generally do not become engineers or programmers because they are raging extroverts (I think I'm qualified to comment on this -- I've been a professional software designer and programmer since 1982). Most are mildly or even strongly introverted. And programming and engineering is deep focus work. You'd think a writer in particular would know the cost of constant interruptions for someone doing that sort of work.

The only charitable interpretation I can come up with is that Eggers meant for all that to be satire or a dystopian future. So maybe it's not meant to be realistic. Certainly that's the view that this Washington Post Review of The Circle (some spoilers) takes.

[Deborah]

Does it succeed as a satirical work?

[Peter]

At least for me, I think I'll have to finish the book before I can answer that.

[Deborah]

Is classifying it as satire sufficient to justify slapping a literary tag on something?

[Peter]

Deborah, that's a fascinating question! My gut response is that no, satire isn't automatically literary any more than any other form of writing (and remembering that the question of what is literature, and what isn't, is highly subjective in the first place). I want a satirical novel to work as a novel. So far, I am finding The Circle violates the rule: "disbelief should be suspended, not hung by the neck until dead."

[Evelina | AvalinahsBooks]

I don't think he's being satirical. he sounds too damn serious about himself, you know? I think he's going for the Utopia feel. by the way, there's one more reason why I think this isn't satirical. it's not that I'm saying he's a lower level writer, but.. he has that American writer thing, doesn't he? surely you know what I mean. definitely not all American writers do this (thank god), but many of them do. it's the fluffy dialog thing. dialogs like they're on tv - and not JUST tv - I mean on tv like CSI. please tell me you guys know what I'm talking about! but the more new books from America I read, the stronger this issue seems to me... there's a certain level a writer puts his book on when he starts using dialog style like that.. and I dare say, it's not very literary in my opinion..
and I wonder why it's an American writer thing. surely Americans don't actually talk like that..? cause sure as hell no one else in the rest of the world talks anything like it. I would like to see an actual person talk like Annie or some of the other characters..

[Daniel]

I'm nearing the end of Part I and not sure how whether this section is intended to encompass all of Part I with spoilers, so I will hide comments for those who might not have read this far yet.

(view spoiler)[I'm reading the e-book, so I don't have page numbers. I'm guessing it's about 20 pages before the end of Part I where Bailey brings up the following notion:

"And I would argue that any place in the world where gays are still persecuted, you could instantly achieve great progress if all the gays and lesbians came out publicly at once. Then whoever is persecuting them, and all those who tacitly support this persecution, would realize that to persecute them would mean persecuting at least ten percent of the population—including their sons, daughters, neighbors and friends—even their own parents. It would be instantly untenable. But the persecution of gays or any minority group is made uniquely possible through secrecy."

The logical fallacies in that paragraph are simply staggering. More realistic scenarios would be that the closeted GLBT population would become even more repressed in their efforts to avoid being outed, and that bigots intent on persecution would use the information as a targeting system. The same problems hound the next paragraphs about Assange. Repressive regimes would certainly become even more repressive if an American corporation was trying to make their secrets public. And how soon do you think it would be before somebody invented some sort of camera scanner or mini-EMP to clear the scene of a planned crime?

The more I read of The Circle, the less I'm impressed with Eggers. It's as if he's become so enamoured with an idea that the big moralistic message has become more important than the plausibility of the journey. I'll echo Peter's response to Deborah's question in saying that classification does not make a novel literary, and that disbelief of this magnitude should not be expected of an audience. (hide spoiler)]

[Casceil]

I'm 40% of the way into the book. I am finding the scenes where Mae interacts with men she finds attractive just down-right embarrassing. They seem so awkward and adolescent--like Mae is about fourteen years old.

[Sophia]

Deborah wrote: "Is it clear that this book is meant to be satirical at the outset and if so how does that color how we come at the story and how we feel about the characters? " Well, now I know we're talking satire I feel a little more enthusiastic about this book. Not a lot though because it doesn't strike me as particularly well written. And satire is not an excuse for busking it...

[Casceil]

The book is not well-written. I am about 80% of the way through, and I continue to be bothered by how shallow and wishy washy Mae is. I certainly hope she is a satirical look at the 20-something generation. She obviously has stellar time-management skills and is very good with any kind of technological interface, but she seems to be completely lacking in any background in history or humanities, and in any interest in thinking for herself. But there have been enough negative comments about this book that Daniel is hoping some of us will find something good to say about it. So give that some thought as you read.

[Sophia]

Some of it is quite funny. I tittered at "The trolls who had more or less overtaken the internet were driven back into the darkness." And the concept of TruYou is quite clever. I can well imagine that someone will dream this up and that billions will sign up for it.

[Peter]

And the concept of TruYou is quite clever. I can well imagine that someone will dream this up and that billions will sign up for it.

It's been tried. People didn't go for it (see Microsoft Passport).

[LindaJ^]

Ahh Peter, I'm not sure we can write off the concept of TruYou on the basis that Microsoft Passport did not work. I am constantly getting asked if I want to sign on to some site using Facebook (which I never do) or if I want to checkout using my Amazon details. Maybe they don't work the same way but for this untech savvy person, they feel similar. And, the potential audience for such a tool is constantly changing, and the younger generations seem to be born with a mobile device in their hand. Just as the younger generations are rejecting many of the older generations' biases, so to, I think, will they revisit rejected tech attempts!

[Peter]

Maybe. But it is also instructive to see how fast the younger crowd moves from social media site to social media site. LiveJournal is now the domain of oldsters and Russians, MySpace is a desert, Facebook is being left for Twitter, Google+ and Tumblr. I don't see any one site or company becoming dominate in such an environment.

[Deborah]

Does anyone know enough of Alexander Calder to speculate whether Eggars including his work is symbolic or significant?

[Casceil]

When I was in college, we had a couple of Calder pieces on campus, and I thought they wonderful. Before he was an artist, Calder studied mechanical engineering. His artwork includes hanging mobiles or kinetic scupture (stuff that moves around in the wind). I suspect Ty's choice of "Kalden" as a name was some sort of reference to Calder.

[LindaJ^]

Peter wrote: "Maybe. But it is also instructive to see how fast the younger crowd moves from social media site to social media site. LiveJournal is now the domain of oldsters and Russians, MySpace is a desert,..."

I agree. I do not see a pure social media site becoming dominant in the fashion of the Circle. But let's just speculate -- what if Facebook bought e-Bay (including PayPal), Amazon, Google, and Apple?

[Peter]

Isn't that rather like a mouse eating up the contents of the big cat house at the zoo? ;) But you'd also have to assume the government had given up even the most cursory antitrust enforcement to let something like that happen in first place. It'd have to be a different world than ours. Not that the multiple, competing set of social media companies we do have aren't a threat to privacy as they are. They just don't make as good comic book villains as The Circle does.

[Peter]

A further thought about this: maybe Eggers felt the need to roll all of the social media companies into one because the current situation, where your privacy is nibbled to death by ducks by many different players is serious, but it isn't dramatic. Google, Facebook, PayPal, Twitter, etc. don't make very satisfying villains if you're essentially writing a techno-thriller.

[Lily]

Casceil wrote: "When I was in college, we had a couple of Calder pieces on campus, and I thought they wonderful. Before he was an artist, Calder studied mechanical engineering. His artwork includes hanging mobil..."

Calder's work is displayed many places, but I especially associate it with Atlanta and the High Museum. (Actually, the largest collection of his work is apparently at the Whitney in NYC.)

http://www.high.org/~/media/Sites/HMA...

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPh...

The mobile I remember I recall as in the lobby when I was there many years ago now. At the time, comparing the museum with NYC's plethora, it seemed as if Atlanta still felt the aftermath of Sherman's March and the destruction of Southern wealth.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexande...

"Throughout the 1930s, Calder continued to give Cirque Calder performances, but he also worked with choreographer Martha Graham, designing stage sets for her ballets and created a moving stage construction to accompany Eric Satie's Socrate in 1936." [Bold added.]

[LindaJ^]

Peter wrote: "A further thought about this: maybe Eggers felt the need to roll all of the social media companies into one because the current situation, where your privacy is nibbled to death by ducks by many di..."

If I remember correctly, the Circle had bought Facebook and others -- there's a comment at one point about the Facebook information being in the Circle's archives.

And this brings back to mind your prior comment (perhaps on another thread?) about government getting off without criticism. Perhaps its ineffectiveness or unwillingness to take the Circle on (and the ease with which the elected representatives took the pledge) is some sort of condemnation?

[Peter]

The thing is, even with current weak antitrust environment, I can't see anything like The Circle being allowed to be created by purchasing all of the social media companies. (And don't get me started about the comic-book means that The Circle used to take down government officials that threatened them. You could get away with that once, maybe twice, but after a certain point it'd be noticed. And the NSA is also responsible for the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems.)

The book is, in its own way, effective. It has had me thinking twice about a lot of topics, which is good. However, it also has an idiot plot -- a plot only works if all the opposition are idiots.

And the reasons why the government isn't doing very well about protecting our privacy include the fact that they're involved in violating it. A book that covered that too would have been a very different book.

[LindaJ^]

Peter, good points -- a book that included government violations would have had to be very different. As I've mentioned in another thread, I think Eggers was focused on bringing awareness to the clueless. Probably a bonus to have the "less than clueless" revisiting and rethinking the issues.

[Deborah]

If a writer seems to be aiming at the lowest common denominator is there an offensive condescension intrinsic to that effort?

[Daniel]

Deborah wrote: "If a writer seems to be aiming at the lowest common denominator is there an offensive condescension intrinsic to that effort?"

Perhaps if that effort is being marketed to a different demographic entirely, it could be construed in that way, yes.

[Lily]

Deborah wrote: "If a writer seems to be aiming at the lowest common denominator is there an offensive condescension intrinsic to that effort?"

Does what you say fit with Eggers's bio? Did Eggers for some reason become over-zealous and careless?

[Daniel]

Lily wrote: "Does what you say fit with Egger's bio?"

I think we're forced to do an awful lot of reading between the lines when it comes to bios like that. Who is to say that Eggers isn't filled with compassion for the underpriveledged, and disdain for the ignorant?

[Deborah]

I don't want to weigh the artist in the context of the art. The work has to stand on its own. I don't really understand the question, Lily. (I feel like I got caught not doing my homework.) I confess ... I didn't really read the bio. I more glanced at it. Can you summarize for us (me?)

[Deborah]

Also, when I say lowest common deno.in at or, I mean there is something insulting not in the desire to educate, but the assertion that these people so t notice that the plot is thin, the characters thinner and the facts are not factually correct.

[Deborah]

Ugh. Phone. Sorry.

[LindaJ^]

Deborah wrote: "Also, when I say lowest common deno.in at or, I mean there is something insulting not in the desire to educate, but the assertion that these people so t notice that the plot is thin, the characters..."

I don't think anyone has suggested that those "clueless" about the dangers inherent in the indiscriminate use of social media won't notice that the plot is thin and the characters superficial. And the facts - well, it is a work of fiction ... .
Daniel challenged us to find something good to say about it and I think Peter did that in commenting that the book was "in its own way, effective. It has had me thinking twice about a lot of topics, which is good [, despite its] idiot plot."

[Deborah]

I think that's a good point, Linda. I really wasn't trying to be as vehement as I came across in text. My point rather was that I don't believe that his intention wasn't grander than the result.

[Evelina | AvalinahsBooks]

The last sentences in this first chapter, and I've decided I really hate Mae. Isn't it disgusting how she lets Bailey put words into her mouth and still manages to think it's her own thoughts..? I've begun thinking that maybe she indeed represents the typical person of today who submits to everything that he's being told and thinks he's not even being told.. such a sheep, that Mae.

[Lily]

Deborah wrote: "I don't want to weigh the artist in the context of the art. The work has to stand on its own. I don't really understand the question, Lily. (I feel like I got caught not doing my homework.) I confe..."

Sorry, Deborah. Have a few minutes now to think -- was juggling a little earlier. Open to continue -- using "spoiler" html only to shorten appearance: (view spoiler)[A little background -- I actually bought the hard copy of The Circle despite its lack luster reviews because a) no library copy appeared likely to be available for a long time, b) if I bought the book, I wanted to be able to share it with my son (a la, no ebook), c) a book was needed to participate in this discussion. Well, I have been concentrating on The Teleportation Accident, so haven't really gotten into The Circle, so no recriminations from here about not getting homework done!

I have, however, been following most of the discussions. (I am not one who cares particularly about spoilers -- that's not why I read most things.) Since I had always heard basically good things about A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and sort of wanted to read it, although it never reached my active TBR, as his other works were praised here, and as the group seemed to be coming down harder and harder on The Circle, I began to wonder what was going on. That's what sent me to Eggers's bio, which I knew not at all previously. I admit to being struck by his story -- his care of his younger brother after the death of his parents, the tragic suicide of his sister in 2001, the numbers of endeavors, from publishing to TED prize for involvement with local public schools, .... That somehow didn't have the feel of someone who would engage deliberately in "offensive condescension."

Hence, my question was not so much to you, although I responded that way, I now realize, as to ask what causes a respected writer to "go off the rails"? While I agree that a work of art should at least largely stand on its own merits independent of its creator (not certain I go so far as the purists on the subject who speak for total independence), I think where we are dealing with contemporary artists, it may well be inevitable that we will sometimes see these dips and swirls in quality -- and that examination of such can rightly be a part of discussions like these -- even though we may need to be far more tentative in our reasoning.

Having once worked at what I refer to as the edge of technology at the time and since my son does so to some extent today, I am still hoping, for all its flaws, The Circle does for us provoke "thinking twice about a lot of topics ...[despite its idiot plot]," to paraphrase another comment here -- even if Eggers's intention was grander than his result -- at least that is how I interpret your double negative. [?] (hide spoiler)]

[Lily]

Evelina wrote: "The last sentences in this first chapter, and I've decided I really hate Mae...."

Evelina -- I'm always fascinated when someone states that they "hate" a character. I wonder if I treat "hate" as a stronger word than it deserves. Certainly you tell us the reasons for your reactions to Mae.

[Sophia]

Does Eggers need Mae to be wholly implausible (and unpleasant!) in order for his outlandish satire to work?

[Casceil]

Apparently?

[Sophia]

It would certainly seem so (!) Mind, I don't think she's unpleasant so much as displaying very human characteristics writ very large.

[Evelina | AvalinahsBooks]

Lily - why i hate Mae? because she has every bad quality imaginable. perhaps this is because i have finished the book now. but she's just horrible.. while at the beginning (30% of the book maybe?) i felt for her and imagined myself in her shoes, later she proved to be a really disgusting person.. she sells out. she totally sells out. she treats the people close to her so horrible (it gets worse by the end, oh - it gets so much worse). she lies - for no reason. she keeps changing her mind about guys in such ridiculous ways that it's hard to understand a person over 13 years old would even do. her temper is horrible at times, she behaves without a single understandable reason.. back in the parts where she often went kayaking into the sea she felt like a nice, normal girl. someone anyone can relate to. but shortly after that she becomes so twisted - i don't even know what Eggers was thinking - she doesn't seem a single character anymore. she acts all over the place, and i think it's either due to bad writing or some attempt to mock the typical human being at being wishy-washy, but i'm not sure. the way Mae sells out though, with the PartiRank, with everything that she thought in the beginning turning around.. with the way she treats Mercer and her parents.. it's definitely a very hateable character, aside from being quite unrealistic.

i don't think you'll continue liking her when you get to like 80%. it gets ridiculous by then.

oh, and.. i said "the last sentences in this chapter..", but that was like last week - and i don't have the book here now.. i don't remember which part was the ending exactly. so i can't comment on that now, unfortunately. just on the general picture.