The more I read the texts, the more frustrated I seem to get. While I understand the need to define and refine how we go about creating speculative design, it is getting to be too much. The categories that Auger describes as means to go about creating speculative design seem to be more about how to be a compelling story teller. Keeping in mind the context the piece is read in, making it believable to the reader, getting the right kind of discomfort for the reader to accept, and having the piece guide the reader along a particular path is basic storytelling/writing. I feel it is really self explanatory/instinctive of a good communicator and that its not adding any new interpretations of those concepts. Later on Auger does on to mention a MoMA exhibit of speculative design and the issues that they had trying to get the audience to focus on the intended path. While that some of these issues could be fixed by more clearly communicated captions and what not, maybe whats more valuable about the experience is the adverse reaction that people had to it. What comes to mind is the grave battery and how someone responded that “[they] don’t feel the need to by remembered as an object. [They} would like [their] energy to create an act”. I think that contains more value than trying to make that person go back and change their reaction. It brings up more valuable questions that can create speculative design that sparks more and higher quality discussion. What is the point of speculative design if the designer tries to force the viewer to have only one reaction to the piece and it is the one that the designer wants/has. This could make speculative design a much better tool for design research and can be used in the way described by Gran and Wiedmer.