Lost in Translation: Media Literacy and The Relativity of the Absurd

"This is why the Foundation does not understand what VKTM creates."

+ CODE

+ CODE

+ CODE

rating: +61+–x

Lost in Translation: Media Literacy and The Relativity of the Absurd

by Heather Garrison & Lillian Lillihammer

Is the medium really the message?

In the Foundation, we typically don't put much stock into divination; why rely on magic when a statistical model is available?1 We would rather engage with what we can define, rather than what we can't. Across the Foundation, this is consistent; we observe and interpret things literally and, as a result, compare it what we feel is 'close enough'. If an anomaly is presented as a film, then we should evaluate it with comparisons to films, right?

What if we are making a fundamental failure when evaluating what media has been chosen by an anomalous organization? What kinds of issues can arise from the assumption that what we perceive as a 'film' was intended by the creators to be a 'film', as we understand it? A lot of problems, actually. Before we can address those issues, we need to understand how we engage with media. That is to say, we need to understand how we evaluate a work; we need media literacy.

Media literacy is often brought up in the context of multimedia anomalies; researchers who evaluate works to better understand the meaning behind them often rely on an established body of works, primarily driven based on an American-centric understanding of what media, art and literature should be.2

This perspective often causes issues. Consider the issues arising from interpreting Daevite texts through an Anglo-Saxon lens,3 or the incongruence between our system of language and that of an anomalous organism; when we try to force a framework onto something that was created by a completely different culture, perspective and even dimension, the key traits that make those texts and media unique are lost.

Despite this potential risk of lost context, Foundation researchers consistently contemplate how an anomaly exists through the lens of normalcy. That is to say, when you work for the Foundation, everything is evaluated based on how distinct it is from the norm.4 When you look at an anomalous film, or television show, you compare it to standard television programming; we only care about how something is anomalous, and never ask if it was intended to be different.

Enter Vikander-Kneed Technical Media (VKTM), an anomalous multimedia production, distribution and management company that prides themselves as being on the 'bleeding edge of media and communications technology'.5 They are responsible for a wide range of multimedia anomalies, and are poorly understood as an organization. Due to the fact that so little is known about the motivations, machinations or mechanics behind VKTM's production process, their works are instead evaluated at face value; in the same way as discussed above, we consider how their media deviates from the norm, and nothing else.

In the case of media produced by VKTM, the consistent answer is that the media they create is consistently absurd, seemingly lacking any and all traces of normalcy, and being obtuse or intentionally difficult to understand. A layperson who is exposed to something that VKTM has created does not have other anomalous examples that they can compare the media to; despite the fact that the Foundation has the depth of comparative multimedia works, it is still evaluated like a normal piece of film or television.

This is why the Foundation does not understand what VKTM creates. We watch something they make and conclude that it is absurd and has no meaning; there are no exact mirrors that we can draw to existing media art forms, and as such, it is not relevant. Normalcy does not care about accurate interpretations, it cares about how it is understood by the viewer. If the viewer will fail to understand the work, then it must be considered absurd, right? We, as the Foundation, must then assume that the absurdity within the works is intentional.

But what if that framework is flawed from the very start? What if VKTM is being honest, and they do create exclusively 'excellent and apolitical media'. Are we simply failing to engage with their content properly? Consider a book in Mandarin as seen by a reader who only understands English; is that not just as absurd and impossible to understand?

We take the things VKTM makes, and we try to translate it into the English and media culture that exists within baseline reality. But, as with any translated works, the nuances, cultural references and intricacies are lost. If we really wanted to understand the message behind a VKTM work, then we need to evaluate it as if the media they create is the norm. Only when we consider the work through the same lens that VKTM does while creating it, can we properly understand and evaluate the pieces.

So how do we develop that understanding? How do we decode the true meanings behind their works? It's simple: in the same way that the Rosetta Stone is used to decode lost languages, we need to use the works that we have to build their internal logic and the language of their media; we need to find the common traits between their works, and understand the cultures that it could emerge from.

Luckily, one of the authors of this work has experienced more content from Vikander-Kneed Technical Media than any individual should within a lifetime; based on that expertise, as well as a media review, the following framework was developed for understanding a piece of media created by VKTM:

  1. Media created by VKTM appears to be directly referential, but significantly distinct when compared to existing forms within non-anomalous broadcast television, film and beyond. This assumption is fundamentally flawed; we cannot make any assumptions of cultural norms with works created by VKTM.
  2. Media created by VKTM does not appear to follow any logical, temporal or causal rationale, when examined from the perspective of baseline reality. This assumption is again, flawed; we must instead take those moments as literally as possible, ignoring our own conceptions of 'baseline reality'.
  3. Media created by VKTM is assumed to be intentionally malicious, created for the purposes of causing chaos, confusion or other negative effects. This assumption is a projection of blame, and assumes intent, which is impossible for us to know. Intent must be removed from the equation. Instead, we must evaluate everything as if there were no intentions regarding impact; the impact is purely how we interpret it.

To demonstrate how this framework is utilized, we chose to analyze SCP-5889, a well-established VKTM anomaly, through the new framework. By modeling how to interpret VKTM works without bias, our hope is that we will be able to better understand what is going on within a given media piece.

Overview: SCP-5889 takes the form of radio broadcasts, originating from the shortwave band station 'VKTM-66.3'. Programming varies, but often features 'Kilimanjaro and The Duke', two radio personalities. The key commonality is that all broadcasts result in terror and emotional distress for a listener.

Example One: 14 November, 1959 Broadcast

Radio Personality: This is Kilimanjaro and the Duke, with your Saturday evening dementia radio hour.

From this, we can infer that this is standard programming. The concept of having routine is important for individuals suffering from dementia, so we must consider the fact that this was created to aid those individuals.

[The sound of metal scraping and squealing as it tears is heard for the next thirty seconds. The frequency and pitch were such that glass reportedly cracked within five miles of the Downtown Crested Butte area.]

Radio Personality: Now, don’t that just beat all. Folks, I never feel more alive than when Duke is pontificating!

[Airhorn sound effect is heard.]

This section of the recording is often dismissed as absurdist when analyzed by researchers; however, that falls into point #2. Instead, we consider this as at face value: Duke is just as valid of a commentator and perspective as Kilimanjaro, a distinctly more familiar voice.

Radio Personality: Oh, hot damn! We got ourselves a request for a shout out to one of our listeners. Amy Kling, we sure hope you can hear us because we’ve got a message from someone special. Your mother wants you to know she’s fine, she’s doing well, and you don’t have to worry.

Radio Personality: She wanted to keep you updated about the rat that broke in and been giving her trouble. He started nibbling down by her toes, and she thinks he likes her, ‘cuz he’s been going hog wild down there for the last hour.

Radio Personality: The maggots crawled through her left eye yesterday, but she’s still got the right eye, and hell, not much to see down there. Anyway, Amy, your momma just wanted you to know that she’s liquefying right according to schedule, and she can’t wait to see you next week!

This segment is often considered by interpreters to imply that Amy's mother is dead, and it is unexpected for her. The focus on the details of the rats and maggots is viewed as intentionally horrifying; again, we need to remove the bias from the equation, and evaluate it as a whole, but within the context of just this segment.

So, instead, consider the following perspective. This segment is a part of the 'Saturday evening dementia radio hour', and features a message from Amy Kling's mother, stating that she is liquifying on schedule, and updating her on the state of the various living organisms that are consuming her body. So why would the late woman want to inform her daughter of this? It goes back to the segment.

The purpose of that message was not to cause fear, nor disgust, nor panic. It was a reminder to Amy Kling that her mother was dead. We cannot assume intent, or extrapolate cause and effect, but by looking exclusively at the content, we can pull out that this is a benevolent broadcast, intended to help combat dementia within the listeners. While the imagery may feel intense, graphic or intended to terrify, based on the context, we can assume that this was done benevolently.

Example Two: 18 April, 1972 Broadcast

News Anchor: Sorry to interrupt our normally scheduled program, folks, but we have some breaking news. Reporters here at VKTM-66.34 have uncovered the real reason for President John F. Kennedy’s assassination: he was a stupid fucking capitalist asshole who was friends with mobsters and illustrated everything most corrupt with this country. We shot him in the head, twice. His wife picked up part of his brains, because she was the embodiment of women’s subservience to the patriarchy in this nation. National goddamn TV and his brains were all over the trunk of that car. And for what? To serve as a warning.

This is clearly a political commentary that reads as a satire of the evening news; however, that is the biases as listed above. If we take this at face value, then this statement is the result of investigative journalism. It takes the form of a news break, because it is just that; it is telling its audience the complete, unadulterated truth.

[Panicked murmuring can be heard for roughly eight seconds.]

News Anchor: You hear that? That’s the sound of your pathetic misconceptions about homosexuality, about race, about gender, about socialism, about education. Someone should kick you in the brain, Mike. Yeah. You. Michael Sinclair, 4543 Rosewater Drive, Grants Pass, Oregon, ZIP code 97526.5 Someone should kick you in the brain. Maybe your wife would pick up the little pieces, but I doubt it with the way you speak to her like she’s property.

This segment highlights who the news broadcast was specifically intended for: Michael Sinclair, of Grants Pass, Oregon. This broadcast is specifically tailored to reveal the truth; that he has significant prejudices and is misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise non-inclusionary. The news isn't directed at the people he knows, rather, this broadcast is specifically meant to change a behaviour within him.

[Panicked murmuring can be heard for roughly twelve seconds.]

News Anchor: Guess what? You don’t matter at all to America. This country is gonna kill you, and it’s gonna refuse to offer treatment along the way. And when your brain is kicked in, bet you’ll be wishing the socialist agenda would stick its nose into your business and pay for all them surgeries, so you don’t end up a goddamn vegetable.

News Anchor: We now return you to the regularly scheduled programming of Dollies’ Dixie Corner. But from all of us at VKTM-66.3, I’d like to wish the corpse of JFK a merry ‘fuck you’. Fuck you too, Mike.

This final segment explains the intent behind this message; Michael Sinclair is clearly an individual who fully believes in a patriotic American message and agenda, and most likely was a major supporter of Kennedy, as an avatar of capitalism and the patriarchal norm. The broadcast is specifically calling out his blindness towards the true version of America, and how his actions and decisions are only going to hurt himself in the long run.

But what more can we infer from the statements made above? We can paint a better picture of who Michael is, by examining the beginning of the segment: the assassination of JFK. So what place does that have in this, beyond being a parallel to prejudiced, patriarchal ideals? The implication is that everybody knows what happened to JFK,6 but for one reason or another, Michael believes otherwise. We can infer that he believes in a conspiracy theory; the later mention of the 'socialist agenda' only serves to reinforce that.

So, we know that this broadcast was intended for Michael — even more so, the regularly scheduled programming is 'Dollies' Dixie Corner', a name that implies connections towards country music and the deep south. Everything in this segment is working towards the same goal; highlighting the idiocy of a perspective, and critiquing the systems and beliefs that allowed for people to develop these thoughts. It is a collectivist message, directly targeted at an individual to elicit change. Once again, we see that VKTM subverts our initial expectations; based on the context of the broadcast, we can assume that VKTM has benevolent intentions.

Example Three: 14 October, 2004 Broadcast

Hartwell: Hey listeners, you're on with Veronica Hartwell. We'll be together for the next two hours, and I want to hear from you. Are you having relationship problems? Maybe you're struggling with your life goals? Or are you just struggling to get by? Call me up, we'll have a chat, and I'll pretend to listen like you matter. Ha! Just kidding you.

This broadcast is distinctive from the other examples given above; it is in the format of a call-in talk show, a common format within broadcast radio. Of note, compared to the other broadcasts by VKTM-66.3, this individual seems significantly more 'normal' than the usual. The talk show seems focused on providing advice for other individuals, for any problems they are facing. Remember that, as well as the phrase 'I'll pretend to listen like you matter.'

[A man can be heard wailing on the recording but the host does not acknowledge it.]

Hartwell: Let's open up the lines. Hi, you're live on VKTM with Veronica Hartwell! What's on your mind, my dear?

[Ten seconds pass without anyone speaking. The wailing increases in volume.]

This section expands the context further. The host, Veronica, seems to be unable to notice the noise of yelling around them. They are so isolated that they do not even acknowledge, or notice the noise in the background. The fact that the caller does not speak is further indicative of this idea; Veronica is alone.

Hartwell: Sorry about that, it looks like the line went dead. Caller, please give us another ring. Let's go to the next listener. Hi, you're on live on VKTM-66.3, what do you want to discuss tonight?

[Twenty seconds pass with no one speaking. The wailing is now so loud that when the host begins speaking, she has to raise her voice to be heard. Still, she does not acknowledge the wailing.]

Hartwell: Huh… Okay then… Maybe another caller? Hi, you're live on air with me, Veronica Hartwell, what can I help you with?

[Thirty-five seconds of moaning can be heard, then the moaning ceases.]

Hartwell: Is anyone out there? Can anyone hear me?

This final segment is an escalation of the earlier events, without any subversions; Veronica is unable to get into contact with any individual, but even more than that, does not seem to acknowledge the existence of anything else.

Consider the juxtaposition of the intense wailing, and Veronica's continual attempts to find an individual who she can be of service to. She is desperate to not only connect with another individual, needing to be helpful. She needs to have a purpose, but is unable to find anybody else; she defines herself through others.

Now consider the earlier phrase 'I'll pretend to listen like you matter.' This implies that the callers, the subjects, are unimportant and don't matter, especially compared to her sense of self as the advice giver. However, when we view this through the lens of that statement being the purpose of this broadcast, a different conclusion can be drawn; that is what Veronica desires most of all. She needs to have somebody listen to her advice, to pretend that she matters, to value her; but she is alone, isolated, and feels like nobody is listening. And yet, despite that, she continues the radio broadcast in a futile attempt to connect with somebody; she doesn't think anybody is listening, but she can't handle the idea of being alone.

This final example is a subversion of the established norms. The intended listener of the broadcast, who is expected to change their behaviours, is not a member of the listening audience. The intended target of the broadcast is Veronica herself. The broadcast is set up to force her to confront the fact that she is chasing after an artificial ideal, and cannot notice the existence of others around her. She is isolated, but by her own choice.

Through these analyses, we can point to the purpose of SCP-5889: it was created by VKTM to help specific individuals, through targeted broadcasts. It is not malevolent, the fear response may be unintended or a consequence of the real goal: benevolence, and an attempt to change an individual, for the better.

We can conclude that VKTM has consistent intentions: they are benevolent, trying to cause change through the creation of a wide range of media. VKTM wants to help people.

Stop. Did you notice that?

None of this is right.

…intended to help combat dementia within the listeners.

…we can assume that this was done benevolently.

This final segment explains the intent behind this message…

…we can assume that VKTM has benevolent intentions.

…this individual seems significantly more 'normal' than the usual.

…intended target of the broadcast is Veronica herself.

…it was created by VKTM to help specific individuals.

Throughout the entire essay, we have argued that, when analyzing and understanding a piece of media, assuming intent undermines the entire argument. In that regard, this essay has failed. None of the above analysis of SCP-5889 is right; it assumes intent. When drawing conclusions, by speculating why something was created, the simple act of speculation creates an assumption of intent.

This entire final segment was pointless. Intentionally.

The statement that "VKTM has consistent intentions: they are benevolent" is a false conclusion. There is no possible way to verify that; in fact, it is much easier to point to evidence from other pieces of media by VKTM that can be interpreted as having the opposite intent. Despite the fact that we were able to draw legitimate conclusions based on the evidence provided, we need to understand that this, in of itself, is an act of assuming intent. So why go to the trouble of all of this analysis? It was all in service of highlighting just how absurd the concept of any framework to analyze art is.

There will never be a way to objectively analyze what VKTM does — anything is irrevocably biased by the interpreter, and any meaning gleamed only exists in the mind of that viewer. It would be disingenuous to say anything else; there is no singular truth behind Vikander-Kneed Technical Media.

Instead, we must treat media they create as we would any other piece of media content, film, television, or art. The meaning is subjective, and based on the viewer — any truth exists only through the act of interpretation. Any interpretation of the meaning of a work is valid, but there is no right answer.

The only wrong answer is thinking that we know why VKTM does anything.

This article was originally published in the Spring 2024 Issue of the Foundation Memetics and Media Quarterly.

Footnotes
More From This Author
‡ Licensing / Citation
_licenseboxcomedydoctor-garrisondoctor-lillihammerforgotten-memoriesno-dialogueon-guard-43talevikander-kneedworldbuilding
page revision: 10, last edited: 27 Mar 2025 16:04
Edit Rate (+61) Tags Discuss (14) History Files Print Site tools + Options
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License