chicago tribune on e-lit

A November 27 Chicago Tribune article by Julia Keller bundles together hypertext fiction, blogging, texting, and new electronic distribution methods for books under a discussion of “e-literature.” Interviewing Scott Rettberg (of Grand Text Auto) and MIT’s William J. Mitchell, the reporter argues that the hallmark of e-literature is increased consumer control over the shape and content of a book:
Literature, like all genres, is being reimagined and remade by the constantly unfolding extravagance of technological advances. The question of who’s in charge — the producer or the consumer — is increasingly relevant to the literary world. The idea of the book as an inert entity is gradually giving way to the idea of the book as a fluid, formless repository for an ever-changing variety of words and ideas by a constantly modified cast of writers.
A fluid, formless repository? Ever-changing words? This is the Ipod version of the future of literature, and I’m having a hard time articulating why I find it disturbing. It might be the idea that the digitized literature will bring about a sort of consumer revolution. I can’t help but think of this idea as a strange rearticulation of the Marxist rhetoric of the Language Poets, a group of experimental writers who claimed to give the reader a greater role in the production process of a literary work as part of critique of capitalism (more on this here). In the Ipod model of e-literature, readers don’t challenge the capitalist sytem: they are consumers, empowered by their purchasing power.
There’s also a a contradiction in the article itself: Keller’s evolutionary narrative, in which the “inert book” slowly becomes an obsolete concept, is undermined by her last paragraphs. She ends the article by quoting Mitchell, who insists that there will always be a place for “traditional paper-based literature” because a book “feels good, looks good — it really works.” This gets us back to Malcolm Gladwell territory: is it true that paper books will always seem to work better than digital ones? Or is it just too difficult to think beyond what “feels good” right now?

One thought on “chicago tribune on e-lit”

  1. A.R.Yngve

    ——————————

    “Keller’s evolutionary narrative, in which the “inert book” slowly becomes an obsolete concept, is undermined by her last paragraphs. She ends the article by quoting Mitchell, who insists that there will always be a place for “traditional paper-based literature” because a book “feels good, looks good — it really works.” This gets us back to Malcolm Gladwell territory: is it true that paper books will always seem to work better than digital ones? Or is it just too difficult to think beyond what “feels good” right now?”

    ——————————–

    I’ve argumented with people about this issue, and the pro-paper argument boils down to pure reactionary instinct: “Paper familiar. Paper good. New media scary!”

    I can list plenty of BAD things about print media on paper:

    1. You can’t update the text comfortably;

    2. It takes up too much space;

    3. You can’t read it without good external lighting;

    4. Print quality varies;

    5. The medium is ruined by paper and stains;

    6. Unlike a plastic/digital display medium, you can’t clean dirt and stains from paper;

    7. Sensitive to heat, fire, sunlight, dry air;

    8. Too easily censored with a marker pen;

    9. Physical inconvenience: the book/magazine requires both hands for holding and turning pages;

    10. You can’t easily cut-and-paste text from pages without ruining the physical page;

    11. Kills trees.

    In short, paper sucks but we got used to it.

Comments are closed.