**entry censored by Chinese Government. Thankyou for your cooperation**

After a heady bout of research at the British Library, a spare half an hour found me at the Taking Liberties exhibition. If documents outlining the intricacies of curtailments of feudal nobility give you a hard-on (on whatever happens to you if you happen to be female), this is for you. It was at times a little difficult for me to invest the old parchments with the sense of awe they deserved, but the copy of Magna Carta and the materials on female suffrage were quite arresting, as they obviously were to everyone else.

Moreover, kudos to whoever curated this and wrote the accompanying copy for making all the exhibits relentlessly relevant to today. It worked - I saw a couple studying the Laws of The Forest as they pertained to 42-day detention (or something), with the following exchange:
-Terrible, isn't it. So unconstitutional.
-...actually... I don't agree with you.
-What?
-...I just don't. I'm...sorry!

They rounded the corner at that point, but I like to think that the debate didn't end there, as it so often does in the real world.
Like the best adverts, the entire setup was designed to seize you and force you take a stance on what you saw. Everyone gets a wristband which they scan at various terminals, at which point they have the opportunity to 'vote' on various issues. This had the beautiful Huxleyan side-effect of reducing the individual to a number:

Best of all, these responses were aggregated in real-time, and available to view at a final, big-screen terminal at the end of the exhibition. The results were presented in a visually pleasing, almost artistic way, and almost made me go back in to vote for what I missed, which has to be a first for an exhibition. And, apparently you can continue your barcoded interaction online afterwards. The voting system was elegant in its simplicity, and makes me wonder why this hasn't been fully realised in the experiential world yet. Not the the seeds aren't there: voting at the co-op tills always makes me smile, and mine was one of the families that went mad for supermarket self-scan then promptly ditched it once the novelty wore off. When the synthesis is realised in the marketing sphere (and make no mistake, all the technology is there and affordable), we could see some really exciting developments. I can't wait to shout "I am not a number!" and mean it for a change.
A couple of final observations before I go enjoy the sun:
-In almost all cases, I voted for the wet-blanket wishy-washy middle option on the terminals. Is this a product of middle-class handwringing? Because it kinda pissed me off. Or is it a result of the proliferation of media meaning that we overdebate the issues, and can't take a side? Tough to say. Aww, I just did it again, huh.
-This child (?) has it right:

-Apt, Neil :)
Happy weekend, everyone! Go picket something...

Product Placement - nothing new

Sometimes precedent crops up in the strangest places, hmm? On Tuesday, Radio 4 told me of the fortunes of John Newbery (1713-67), one of the most successful publishers of his period. One book in particular, the ultra-didactic The History Of Little Goody Two-Shoes, was a roaring success. In fact, it was one of the milestone texts we studied at Uni... but did he make his money in publishing?

Do TV producers make their money in producing?

In both cases, the answer is no! Like the broadcast media of today, Newbery made his great fortune in advertising - for he had another product:

Doctor James' Fever Powder! Which sounds utterly awesome by the way, to the extent that you can almost imagine it as a powder designed to cause fever. What a horrible idea, Doctor James. Shame on you!

Anyway, Newbery's masterstroke that set him above the other quacks was one of the first instances of those two 'evils': a) product placement, and b) advertising to children. Check out this passage from Goody Two-Shoes:

"Care and Discontent shortened the Days of Little Margery's Father.--He was forced from his Family, and seized with a violent Fever in a Place where Dr.James's Powder was not to be had, and where he died miserably"

Hmm, what a truly wonderful powder this must be! I wonder I might find it? And then, at the end of the book:

By the KING'S Royal Patent,

Are Sold by J. NEWBERY, at the Bible and Sun in St. Paul's Church-Yard.

1.	Dr. James's Powders for Fevers, the Small-Pox, Measles, Colds, &c. 2s. 6d.

I guess there are two ways to look at this. One is exploiting and terrifying children at their most impressionable (in the midst of an educative book) for personal gain.

The other is to see it as a necessary 'tax', without which this otherwise morally-enriching and popular text might have never seen daylight. Which is true?

I don't know. But the debate's resurfacing!