DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.


“The Serendipitous Relationship between the Cat and Curiosity”

 

People need connections. Without connections, people disarm their own curiosity. Without connections people are left to answer the never-ending question of “Why?” People want to secure answers and look more in depth into certain subjects. Some people call it serendipity and some may call it links, but no matter what you call it, it is an essential need called curiosity. Regardless of popular belief, serendipity is a bridge of connection that may not have an existential issue, but is needed for good curiosity. We fill this need of connection and curiosity through the use of print and digital space; both giving us a way to link to our curiosity.

 

People sometimes try to disprove curiosity as a good thing. There is that once famous quote, “Curiosity killed the Cat.”  Basically meaning, don’t over investigate, don’t think too much, don’t worry, etc. Personally, I take this at great offense. I think curiosity is a human right. We were all born with it instinctually. It’s not something a person can easily repress and yet, even repression can cause curiosity. It’s an endless cycle, so why try to diverge away from it. It’s a god given right as some like to put it. Serendipity is one way to fulfill curiosity especially over the massive universe of digital and print.  

 

Print serendipity may be the greatest form of serendipity that exists today. A print newspaper like the New York Times is a great example of Serendipity. If you examine the front page of the New York Times, you may not consciously know that they are imbedding curiosity into you. This may sound like a forceful approach, but the New York Times doesn’t ask you if you want to be curious, they invoke you to be curious.  Through their uses of titles, subject matter, and certain words, they create serendipity in the print world. One second you could be reading an article on gun control laws, the next second you may have transitioned over to the article on the over hunting of wild game in Louisiana. At first glance, you may not even see a connection, but if you look closely there are many things connecting these two articles; guns, hunting, over usage, laws, etc. Print serendipity is one of the greatest tools an author or publisher can use to hook readers into their articles and create a long lasting readership with their customers.  

 

There's so much of modern life that makes it preferable to the vaunted good old days - better hygiene products and power steering leap to mind - but in these disposable days of now and the future, the concept of serendipity is endangered.” –William McKeen, The New York Times

 

Digital serendipity is something people struggle to come to terms with. Serendipity does in fact exist in the digital realm, just not in the same way as print. My argument is that digital serendipity exists in the form of links. If you think about it, links and serendipity have similar meanings; they both refer to connections. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean they are the same kind of connections. Serendipity in print refers to thematic connections between pieces of writing. Digital serendipity, or as it should be referred to as Links, refers to a more factual and direct connection. This begs for the separation of two kinds of people. Which kind of serendipity is preferred? This all comes back to curiosity. How do you get your curiosity? Some people probably appreciate print serendipity more because of the thematic relationships, however some may prefer digital serendipity because it provides direct connections.

 

The Internet may in fact be the greatest source for serendipity. The Internet is the most advanced and vast network of knowledge we have in our hands today, however as Bill Thompson of BBC News likes to put it, “Not all of the things we find online are useful.” But none the less stating, “Not every book stumbled across in a library is the one that changes your world view and prompts a new scientific revolution.” Thompson argues a similar argument saying, “The question is whether the online information sources we use today limit our potential to find material by accident, and so reduce the chance of inadvertently discovering wonderful things or life-changing facts.” Thompson doesn’t think it does. He believes the Internet is actually enhancing our serendipitous lifestyle. “Every time I do a search, every time I read someone's blog, and every time I engage in an online conversation with a friend, I'm entering a space where the possibility for a serendipitous discovery exists, and to a far greater degree than in most other areas of my life.” This proves true from personal experience as well. My favorite form of serendipity on the Internet is Wikipedia. For example,  you may be reading a Wikipedia article about electricity and within that article it mentions that Benjamin Franklin  discovered it. Using a link, I click Franklins name. Then while reading about Benjamin Franklin, within his article may be the mentioning of some of his other discoveries and inventions, so I click them and proceed to read about them. The Internet is full of serendipitous endings and accidental discoveries ready to be made.

 

However, I will admit some faults in my argument. The biggest being that print serendipity requires curiosity and digital serendipity requires the will to be curious. The benefit of print serendipity is that what is written is permanent. Print space is uncontrollable by the user. The user can either read or not read, but when reading the user cannot control his or her curiosity. The will to be curious is not hindered with print. Digital space however gives the user options. It is a space of instant gratification that doesn’t require a curious user. In other words, serendipity is in the hands of the user. Being curious is something you have to be in order to obtain serendipity in Internet, granted limited exceptions like most things. That being said, I previously mentioned curiosity as a human right and instinct and there has to be some evidence to back that up. Seeing as curiosity is merely an abstract idea, not something we can physically harvest, I think the proof lies in the concept. An article from the New York Times in 1922, yet almost a hundred years old, still proves relevant in saying, “The most distinguished men and woman in every walk of life respond to the delicate lure, and those of us who have not achieved distinction can join the gathering on the same terms as the Prime Minister or the prima donna.”

 

Since the question of whether serendipity exists in certain spaces isn’t even the question at all, we can agree, as humans, that serendipity is more of an abstract idea of connections, willing to be harvested by its users. How it is harvested is a preferential problem, easily solved by the process of deciding which is best for you. Oh, and that cat that was killed by his own curiosity; well, he may have just needed the will to be curious. Luckily, he has 9 lives.



Sources:

 

"Instinctive Curiosity." The New York Times 28 May 1992: n. pag. New York Times. Web. 26 Apr. 2013.

 

Thompson, Bill. "BBC NEWS | Technology | Serendipity casts a very wide net." BBC News. N.p., 26 May 2006. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5018998.stm>.

 

DARLIN, DAMON. "The Digital Age Is Stamping Out Serendipity - NYTimes.com." The New York Times . N.p., 1 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/02ping.html?_r=0>.

 

McKEEN, WILLIAM. "Serendipity - New York Times." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll08McKEEN.html>. 

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.