'Lo:
I find your fundamental difference a bit hard to grasp. First,
interaction with literary mediums does not necessarily mean physical
interaction. I, for one, would like to believe that in spite of all
the trash we see on TV, there is still some critical (in almost all
senses of the word) cognitive activity going on in the brain that we
could count as interacting with the technology. Mental interaction
counts for something, right? And, physical interaction is never
without its brain correlate. Second, how can computers not be a medium
of reproduction? That's what they do best, they churn out the same
things over and over again! Third, let's not forget digital computing
technology extends beyond the desktop machine, so when you speak of the
computer you mean one instantiation of a digital computing device.
There are many computing devices, just as there are many printed
devices. There are many computers in your car. And, as you say in the
case of the computer in the TV, there will inevitably be a continuing
confluence of computing technology with other technologies.
So I think your "fundamental difference" is not a difference at all, at
least with respect to interaction and "talking back" with the
technology (and this is meant to spark an argument). Although you are
right that digital technology will create and modify existing forms of
literature, you are wrong to say that the printing press or mass
production of text established literature as a form. The printing
press established several forms of literature, but it wasn't the first
and it won't be the last. Art, drawing, pictures are as much a part of
literature (and this is perhaps a philosophical argument) as material
language.
etienne
> Hi Steve,
>
> There is a fundamental difference between technologies of mass
> reproduction, such as printing, and computers. Printing, broadcast
> media, movies, etc., are non-interactive: in each case, we are
> basically left with two options, namely reading (watching, listening,
> etc.) or not. We can't "talk back". But when we use computers, we must
> act on the material presented on the screen: we must constantly issue
> commands, through writing, pointing-and-clicking, voice activation,
> whatever. And if we connect computers in networks, and these
> networks in the Internet, besides the "interactivity" with the machine
> we also have interaction with other people.
>
> It's true that we are able to "talk back" to television or radio
> shows, but only if we use the telephone (an interactive medium). On
> the other hand, we may issue commands to a TV or radio set, but they
> boil down to zapping and adjusting parameters such as volume,
> brightness (in the case of TV), etc. We can't change the programs
> themselves - and when we can, as is the case with "interactive
> television", this is done thanks to a computer connected to the TV.
>
> All this is to say that the use of computers as an aid to learning
> literature will certainly change how we interpret literary works and
> even what counts as "literature". When you say that "Printing
> presses and computers can modify the forms of literature and provide
> different ways that these artifacts of text can be looked at", I would
> say that printing presses helped to establish literature as a form,
> and computers can induce some important changes in the way this form
> of expression is understood and (re)produced. But what these changes
> are, and how wide, nobody knows. We'll have to wait and see.
>
> Sorry for the delay. Rgrds,
>
> Luiz Carlos Baptista
> lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> lucabaptista@hotmail.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Gabosch
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 2:48 AM
> Subject: Re: first brief remarks on Carol Lee's article
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> Great points.
>
> One underlying theme we seem to be grappling with is the question of
> whether and how much computers really change the basic issues of
> culture in
> general and literature in particular. The essential educational
> challenge
> behind Carol's article is the development of ways to learn and teach
> literature across cultures. Her article is about how a new generation
> of
> computer-based learning tools is beginning to open possibilities for
> teachers to produce their own illustrated, annotated and hyper-linked
> versions of literature to facilitate culturally responsive approaches
> in
> the classroom to the study of "canonical texts." How are these new
> tools,
> and computers in general, changing our understanding of what literature
> really is? Do they change the essential dynamic of literature?
>
> As you emphasize, digital technology brings many possibilities to new
> heights, such as the ability to create copies that are immediately
> identical to one another, and the ability to create text, images and
> sounds
> in the digital media itself. But hasn't this been a characteristic of
> industrial mass production all along? In particular, the mass
> publication
> of literature - barely 500 years old, since the invention of the
> printing
> press - has always had an aspect of these peculiar features. Just as
> is
> the case in digital communication technology, virtually identical
> copies
> can be made in large quantities, and the medium of reproduction itself
> (print galleys, etc.) can be used for composition. Mass literature is
> born
> as a reproduction. And now, in the digital age, this capacity has
> leaped
> to new levels.
>
> Which gets back to those complex questions: just where is the
> "original"? (And what is a "reproduction"?) As you point out,
> scholars
> are sometimes needed to sort out confusion over origination, and when
> they
> can, of course they go to the original manuscripts - which themselves
> can
> have multiple versions! But is the question of the original really
> just a
> technical question of identifying a particular artifact?
>
> I am inclined to think in Bakhtinian terms at this point. Is there
> really
> such a thing at all as an "original'? Is there such a thing as an
> "original" if it is not "reproduced"? Is it literature in any sense at
> all
> if it is not reproduced? Can a work of literature really be such
> without
> readers, without interpreters, without people who themselves mediate
> the
> message and transform the text into real experience, real dialogue,
> and in
> doing so, real social relations? In this line of thinking, all
> "reproductions" become versions not just of some "original" but also
> the
> living process of people interacting with the work.
>
> The hard copy, according to this line of argument, is just one part of
> the
> real process of reproduction, which occurs only when people are
> intersecting and interpenetrating with it. The "authenticity" of the
> reproduction of the "original" - its degree of being mediated with
> abridgments, illustrations, annotations, etc., the version it turns
> out to
> be - plays a role, but perhaps not the essential role. Whether the
> original was on screen and the reproduction was in a book, or the
> original
> was in a book and the reproduction was on screen, is interesting, but
> again, not essential. Perhaps the essential issue is how the readers
> are
> actually and culturally interacting with whatever version they are
> dealing
> with. Versions change over time, forms vary, but readers and the ways
> they
> interpret the things they read change even more, and here is where we
> can
> really locate the dynamics of the origin and reproduction of
> literature.
>
> Your point is well taken that there are important differences between
> the
> mode of the mass-published printed page, and the mode of computer
> technology (which often winds up, as you ironically point out, on more
> printed pages!). And certainly, these differences in modes of
> reproduction
> have opened our minds to more flexible notions as to what counts as
> "literature".
>
> But perhaps as the industrial age has developed and we have learned to
> reproduce more and more things in more and more ways, we are learning
> more
> about what the essence of cultural events is really all about. If our
> notions of what counts as literature are changing, perhaps it is
> because we
> are getting a better idea of what literature really is. Printing
> presses
> and computers can modify the forms of literature and provide different
> ways
> that these artifacts of text can be looked at, and if the literature is
> interesting to enough people, over time, more and more versions seem to
> proliferate. But no matter what the form literature takes, and no
> matter
> what technology is used to make copies of it, it is people that supply
> its
> content and really reproduce it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
> At 03:34 PM 11/14/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >Lots of interesting points in your message. I'll follow some threads.
> >
> >«the absolute similarity of copies does not negate the obvious fact
> that
> >even a digital copy is not the same thing as the original performance,
> >image, or whatever it is a recording of.»
> >
> >I agree. But then there is a qualitative difference between digital
> and
> >analogic representation, and it's the fact that whenever we
> create/produce
> >something in digital mode (say, a software, a video game, a piece of
> >"techno" music) the "copies" of this work are undistinguishable from
> the
> >"original". There is no loss of quality or information, and the very
> notions
> >of "original" and "copy" become problematic, to say the least.
> >
> >
> >«Just where do we locate a literary "original"? Is it the author's
> original
> >manuscript? Perhaps the serialization of their writing in a
> newspaper (as
> >many of Charles Dickens' books were)? The first edition of the first
> book
> >the text appeared in? The highest quality edition ever published?
> The
> >current edition in print? The best e-book version available?»
> >
> >Tricky questions indeed. But I think that as regards literature,
> there is
> >already a well-established tradition of scholarship and
> interpretation which
> >employs procedures to identify "authoritative" versions of literary
> works
> >(not that this identification is always without argument; the
> contrary seems
> >to be the case, but at least there is a common basis for discussion).
> >
> >
> >«And then, just to reverse the order of events, how about literary
> writing
> >that originates on the internet? Suppose the next great Portuguese
> novel is
> >originally published on the web - and subsequently printed in book
> form.
> >Wouldn't the production of this work in book form then be a "layer of
> >mediation"?»
> >
> >Of course it would. For instance, a book published on the Web has a
> >different structure than in print. Think about hypertext links, the
> absence
> >of page numbers, the different division of sections, etc. Besides
> that, if a
> >text is too long we'd rather print it, because the screen is not as
> good as
> >paper to read. All this is to say that a printed book can "have" more
> layers
> >of mediation than a computer, no problem with that.
> >
> >
> >«Why can't literature be just as real on screens as it is in
> beautifully
> >bound books? Does the screen format really add another layer of
> mediation
> >that is fundamentally different from the layer of editing that is
> involved
> >in creating a new edition of a book? Perhaps rather than another
> layer, we
> >just have the possibility of many versions.»
> >
> >I disagree. The production of a new edition of a printed book is very
> >different from the adaptation of this same book to the Web. The media
> are
> >different. This is not to say that the notion of "literature" doesn't
> apply
> >to texts on the screen. Rather, what we have here is a change in our
> notion
> >of what counts as "literature" - a change brought about by our uses
> of a new
> >technology.
> >
> >Rgrds,
> >
> >Luiz Carlos Baptista
> >lucabaptista@sapo.pt
> >lucabaptista@hotmail.com
>
>
>
Etienne
..........................................................
Living by and for ideals Life's little ironies #4:
is a strength, Wisdom of the right path
Evaluating others with them only becomes apparent when
is a weakness. that path is unreachable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:12 PST