With the recent release of his Biography “Steve Jobs” by Walter Issacson, many have begun to write their reviews of the book and also how they felt about Jobs. One review by Research Analyst and editor Krishnan Subramanian caught my attention and it’s fascinating to see how he described the book. Subramanian wrote a very short article over the review of the Steve Jobs biography. He wrote the editorial via cloud ave.com. It is a computing websites with primary goals to give general commentary on business related trend as a well as detailed analysis of new release, thus explaining the review of the Job’s biography and its subject position. Subramanian is a research analyst and editor that also works in the technology field with a company called Cloud Computing that specialize in viewing computing more as a service than as a product. He starts off with the cover of Steve Jobs, but unlike
most of the other reviews, he showed both the front and back cover of it. On the back over is a young "hippie" Steve Jobs with his long hair and is sitting cross-legged. It's as if the reviewer suggests two interpretations of Jobs. This interpretation is furthered when Subramanian sums up the book in two words: Filthy Genius. The prose on this article lacked formal structure with it being just a couple of sentences before the paragraph or bullet point ended. Subramanian wrote his review fairly short with only five key points to point out, which are in list form and characterize his business background even more. It is clear to see that with these two words he had a love hate relationship with Jobs. He talked early in the review how their might be possible bias in favor of Jobs because of his death and the author but by the end of the book it seemed quite the contrary thus labeling him a “Filthy Genius”. Subramanian is an admirer of his products and his company but wasn’t of fan of his “emotional failings” as he put it. He was referring to the rants that he had against his worker and lack of sympathy towards them. When he says this, it sheds light on the overall holiness that many people might have put him in and painted him as a “saint” after his death as earlier described, but now it seemed to paint him as a human. The way he presented the editorial was reflexive and was interesting to see how presented his ideas which aren’t in perfectly formed paragraphs. He presented them in his way instilling the idea that is an individual’s opinion, not a big wig corporation with new executives. It was more relatable and less intimidating. Overall he ends off saying that after reading the book most will come to end up appreciating his work. The editor sounded like someone that look beyond how media was portraying Jobs and determined for himself, something we should all do. Documentation by Tao Yang
In general, this is an authorized biography doesn't hide the Apple CEO's shortcomings. Steve Jobs is no doubt a great man all over the world and in most people’s perspectives, he is unbeatable, powerful and unequattempty. It is true. However, in this book, the author Isaacson does not only write the Jobs’ great contribution to the world but also some small things in Jobs’ life which can dramatically represent his personality.
Jobs is a man of character. There are several characteristics that is closely related to Jobs’ legendary success: not afriad of failure, devoting his all to work, be ture to friends.
The author who comments on the biography of Steve Jobs wrote by Walter Isaacson, is not totally agree with the author;s evaluation of this famous Apple’s CEO.
In this article, the author doubts that Isaacson only wrote Jobs’ merit and he doubts about his blind adore towards Jobs. For example, Isaacson uses several pages only to write tiny things such as how Jobs chose to buy a washing machine. It is such a common thing that does not worth mentioning and everyone has his or her reason to choose which to buy. But if it happened to Jobs, Isaacson would think that Jobs is such a hero that he did everything different than other people.
The author also disagrees that Jobs is friendly to others. He mentioned Jobs denied paternity when he was in his twenty’s, he cheated his friend out of money and he berascal his co-workers and suppliers with very rude words. I believe the author reveals something true to us. There is no one who does not make mistake. True, Jobs is probably not easy to get alone with, we cannot ignore what he brought to the world.
Jobs is a man of character. There are several characteristics that is closely related to Jobs’ legendary success: not afraid of failure, devoting his all to work, be true to friends.
His early working experience is much harder than people usually think of. In 1985, because of the diverse views between him and the management layer, he was forced to leave the apple company he established himself, which was a fetal attack to a young man. But he cheered up, establishing another company named “NEXT” and then acquired Pixar. When he was diagnosed as pancreatic cancer with only several weeks to live, he said: “there is nothing to make one concentrated than die. Time is very limited, so don’t waste it to live in others’ ways, which means do not follow others’ thoughts or let their opinions floods your own idea. Be yourself.”
We can conclude in a word that is remarkablly representing Jobs: passion. With passion, he did his best to change the world and to make us a better living. With passion, he treated everyday as the last day before the death. So he worked, aborbed knowledge and created new product with great eagerness day after day.
When Steve Jobs passed away, he was and still is a huge source of biased news. We decided to see how different media outlets felt towards his recently released biography.
Seeing as to how we already had two written narratives on Walter Isaacson’s biography, I decided to find a video blog of a review. I stumbled onto Matthew Pearce’s Google+ page and found a YouTube video review of the biography.
Going into this, I really expected amateur style video recording with that typical pixelated man in front of his webcam lamely talking about his feelings type thing, but boy, was I in for a surprise... especially since the first thing I thought after I watched this was how well he used staging tool #1: the aesthetics to show how he felt about Apple and Steve Jobs.
The presentation of the review is very aesthetically pleasing, to the point where if you muted it, the video would be able to pass itself off as an Apple commercial, BUT he is very clever with reminding us that the video you are watching is still, indeed, a narrative created by his position.
His calm voice, strangely soothing in a slightly nerdy way, shows us he is very well spoken and articulate with his words. He takes a small jab at Walter Isaacson and says, rather bluntly, how the biography is “not the most sophisticatedly written biography” suggesting to us that Matt is an intelligent person and expects sophistication when it comes to things. Did you sense a tinge of intimidation mixed with admiration? Like when you walk into an Apple store and you are intimidated by what you see, yet you can’t resist going and playing with the lovely gadgets.
Matthew Pearce’s Google+ page has the words “I make things on my Mac”. Matt is clearly fan of Apple and is indefinitely an admirer of Steve Jobs through how he represents Jobs in his review. He begins the review by humanizing Jobs through his less-than-perfect relationship with his daughter to praising him for how clever he was to name the company Apple because it came before Atari. Through his mode and ability to present data, Matt shows us that he knows what he’s talking about. By being such a big Apple fan, the dilemma we face is that this review is a very “partial” partial truth. Or rather, this is what one would call, a true Apple company fan’s review.
The media can represent itself in so many ways. In our case, the media is 1) a blogger with a background in business through being an analyst 2) a writer/columnist and 3) a diehard Mac user fan. The rhetoric provided by each source is very different because their audiences are different therefore emphasizing on the politics of representation. The way they chose to express their feelings were all very different to accommodate their audience. The writer/columnist definitely provided more content from the biography to prove how he felt towards Jobs, which seems like the typical writer way; present and use data to argue points because most of his audience will be those who are curious as to what was revealed about him. He was the most neutral, providing equally positive and negative information on Jobs and frankly stating that the biography was made specifically “to satisfy the cult.” The analyst was very short and straight to the point, even organizing his ideas into a quick and easy list because his audience would probably be more interested on those main points and whether or not reading the biography would be to their best business interest. As for the Mac user, his review was more of a tribute to Steve Jobs showing off the gadgets Apple provided to tech-savvies like him.
In many ways, the “leading classes” are controlling the news. They choose what they want their readers to know and sometimes even suggest a specific prejudice, but this is influenced by what the leading classes think the audience will be intrigued by. It is a constant cycle between the media and its audience because without the audience there is no media, and without the media, there is no audience. Once that audience base is created in a certain media outlet, it seems like that is the way the outlet will go. As docile bodies, we tend to land on what we see as the popular opinion, but we cannot forget that news is a narrative of history from an individual’s point of view and even though it is easier to have an idealist view on history, to find out the truth, you have to put together multiple partial truths; that is when responsibility falls onto the reader to find unique narratives, as well as different popular narratives, to create the reality of history and this is when the “weaker” classes can come into play and control the news.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow is it that everybody becomes a saint as soon as they die? The same thing happened to Michael Jackson when he died as is happening to Steve Jobs. There is no denying the fact that both men did great things for the industries that they worked in, but as soon as they died all negative thoughts about them went away. Michael Jackson was seen as a freak in his last few years. He had multiple plastic surgery operations and he had issues with children and the media. As soon as he died all this went away. He was shown to be the king of the music industry like he was early in his life. The same thing is happening to Steve Jobs. In this project there is mention of how Steve Jobs was a dick to people. But as soon as he died, he is only the greatest innovator that the world will seemingly ever have. I do not mean to take anything away from the accomplishments of either men, but the media and other people's perceptions are skewed by death. I feel the more I read about Steve Jobs the less and less I like him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is ironic that history seems to go that way. He was actually a horrible human being, but being able to do what he did to technology, I think people are more awestruck by what he did in his lifetime rather than who he was and how he treated people. Same goes with other examples in history. I think this is when it's up to the individual to research and find out both sides of the story, but with that, you cannot deny the impact that these people had on the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Joe said that it is strange that everybody becomes a saint as soon as they die. Although Steve Jobs accomplished so much he is known for not treating people well and doing whatever it takes to succeed. When someone of higher standing dies it seems like our society only wants to focus on the good instead of the bad.
ReplyDeleteI think that when a person died, people judge him by what he have accoplished in his living time. Not everyone died could become a saint. Steve Jobs could be one is because the contribute he brought to the world. Im sure he has some dirty little secret, but these secrets won't affect the fact that he brought so much joy to the world. Think about it, Iphone, Ipad, all these is his idea, his achiviment. Same as MJ. Even thought when he was alive, he got so many negative news, but you can't change the fact that he is the king of pop! Even after he passed away.
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends how the person was perceived in the media during their life that affects the way they are perceived after they died, to a certain extent. In most cultures there is a respect for the dead, so completely insulting a person during their life is considerably easier than ranting about what a terrible person they are after death. Some however, like terrorists or dictators, continue to be spoken of poorly after their death. The media grants respect to Steve Jobs for the work he did in his lifetime but there really isn't any reason to rant about his temper or how he treated his workers now that he is no longer able to treat them poorly. Discussions about his inventions make for much better and more readable news than a list of personality problems. After all, money is the greatest editor in the media.
ReplyDeleteThis is a classic example of celebrities dying and then becoming the center of attention. The real question is why is it that once a good influence, creator, innovator, etc is gone, then they become recognized. Steve Jobs has always been given so much credit and looked at as a true genius in the business world, often being mentioned and used as an example in presentations, training sessions, etc., but when he dies, THEN he becomes the center of attention in all the rest of the media. All the attention usually goes to super models, the Kardashians or reality TV stars, or Jobs' products themselves in advertisements, but never much about him. I guess this is societies way of telling us, innovation and filthy genius aren't prevalent at all over marriages, divorces and drunken celebrities taking off their clothes, unless someone dies, then it becomes more important.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the comment above about people becoming known as such a better person after they die really got me thinking. I think the feelings that individuals associate with death causes this to happen. When someone passes away we can't help but remember them as a good and special person, and not as a bad one. I knew nothing about Steve Jobs before he died, and after reading this article i have learned a lot. I actually had no idea that he was such a mean person to others. Society itself is such a complex thing, and its ways have developed by society itself. Like, a celebrity dying and becoming more famous.
ReplyDelete