Do computers renogotiate the cultural role of prose?
Bolter argues that “prose itself is being forced to renegotiate its cultural role”. This post will take that idea to task.
Many influences renegotiate cultural rules and norms. The passage of time and evolution of text technology has allowed text to enter new and wider realms that it previously didn’t inhabit. Rather than changing the cultural role of prose, one can argue that it has simply widened the lens and made prose more accessible to the masses.
Our more than 200 year old relationship with print is deeply embedded in a relationship of implicit trust and belief that the written word has authority. The arduous task of putting writing in to print (via the printing press) encouraged an enculturated belief that only the “truth” was published.
The modern age of technology and computer based text has called in to question the authenticity and honesty of the printed word as the role of author has become accessible to anyone and everyone, and the role of critic too has been opened up to the wider world. The major question that computer technology has called in to question is “What is the truth?” Theorists have begun to recognize that all prose is a story and that the printed word is just as unstable as a moving object (cinema or film).
As Bolter mentions “technology seems to reduce the distance between author and reader by turning the reader in to author herself”. The very fact that I am blogging on Bolter’s writing is evidence of this point.
But does this renegotiate the cultural role of text? Technology has simply fragmented and deconstructed text. It has removed authorial control-, unbound a text from a singular physical unit in to fractured pages, unglued the words from the page and made them dynamic and interactive. It has made text portable in a way never imagined, and removed it from the halls of academia to the open world of the web.
True, computer based text technology can be viewed as chaotic and in a constant state of flux as information is reorganized, reinterpreted and updated. However, this is not unstable. It is simply put- more accurate and in pursuit of a greater truth.
In some ways computer based text technology has reached a stage where it is analogous to thought. The writing process has become so entrenched in culture that we think and write simultaneously. Take social media where people share their thoughts on twitter and visual experiences on Instagram with an immediacy that is unparalleled to any other time in history.
Ultimately, the relationship between text and reader has changed very little. It still speaks to the reader personally- just in more languages. It still tells a story – but from other places. True, the experience of pressing a button and turning a page are very different, but in the end it’s the content not the medium that acts upon the reader. And so, the cultural role of prose remains the same as it always has.
Resources
Bolter, J.A. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. [2nd ed.]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Munslow, A. (2007). Film and History: Robert A. Rosenstone and History on Film/Film on History. Rethinking History ,11(4), p.565 – 575.
I’m going to delve a little deeper into this idea:
“Our more than 200 year old relationship with print is deeply embedded in a relationship of implicit trust and belief that the written word has authority. The arduous task of putting writing in to print (via the printing press) encouraged an enculturated belief that only the “truth” was published.”
I think that pre-Internet, the higher one went in education, the more one had a right to question the authority of the published word. In elementary school, if it was published in print, it was true. In high school, one learned to question what may have been published in a newspaper, magazine or fiction, but if it was printed less frequently than weekly and written with an air of objectivity, it was still taken to be an authoritative truth. In community college, one learned to question printed truth, but only in one very specific, studied field. And in university, especially the Arts, one was judged on how well they could specify fault lines in the printed word and how compellingly they could argue an alternative to that which was already in print.
Though I wrote that paragraph in the past tense, the same can pretty much be said today in the intent of education, but because of the immediacy of electronic text that you and Bolter mention, one is apt to question prose (both on screen and in print) at a younger age. I don’t think that people posting things off the tops of their heads leads to a greater truth so much as it leads to an overflowing landfill of untruth. When I scan my Facebook page and friends post things Rob Ford, Donald Trump or Stephen Harper say, they do so mockingly because of their obvious stench of BS, and I would argue it no longer takes a university degree to distinguish the ironic from the earnest.
So, while I agree with almost all of your points here, they lead me to a different conclusion, that the relationship between text and reader has changed, in that text is taken with more skepticism that it once was, especially for those who are younger and/or less educated.
I would have to agree with your comment that “text is taken with more skepticism that it once was”. With the increased amount of information online, people can now become more educated on various topics, which gives them more opportunities, and supportive arguments, to question the validity of a particular text. Previously, when works from authors were printed, it seemed to validate the “truth” within the text. Seeing as authors were viewed as figures of authority, rarely did people question the validity of the message being dispensed. However, with the advent of the Internet and various other digital media, the role of authorship has changed such that just about anyone can now become a writer or creator of content. As a result, there has been an increase in both valid and invalid information available to the general public. Therefore, as mentioned by Revathy, the role of critic has also changed in which a wider audience is actively seeking to ensure the information dispensed online is honest and truthful.