Prelude: Please also forgive ‘manifesto’.
Second Prelude: I hesitate to use the term ‘digital’ as I am feeling pedantic and the term is often used to connote or replace ‘computer’. Digital refers to discrete, discontinuous data. The alphabet is digital. ‘Binary’ might be better, but quantification in my view is not sufficient to justify that term – especially as digital electronics rely on discrete bands of analog levels. Anyways,
In response to question 7:
Computers remediate literacy, orality and other media in and of themselves.
The networked machine expands this space. As medium of expression it:
- Removes barriers to entry (publishers, prestige) – visible in social media
- Connects like-minded reader/listener/writers (e.g. this class)
- Widens (and empowers) audiences
- Redraws boundaries (geographic, statist, social)
- Allows for (more) collaborative observation and review of (not necessarily dialogical) expression (even when such is not transcribed – “Have you seen the YouTube comments lately?” – Ben Haggerty)
- Exponentially increases the speed of communication
- Reduces – better, re-creates – through [digital, binary, fixed] representation (to an extent. It also makes available multiple perspectives to those who (are capable of) seek[ing] them, despite what Walter Benjamin might have thought)
- Reinforces binary concepts of truth (this is tenuous)
- Encourages undergraduates to write in short sentences and use bullet points?
- Decentralizes/disseminates knowledge
- Centralizes knowledge (encryption; barriers to entry are still present)
- Serves as a medium for power (or society, really)
- Makes generally available tools for the production of knowledge (beyond information and the obvious mathematics / exponential force; social media could fit this definition) and in doing so shapes the knowledge generally produced
- Represents – and replaces – the user
- Mitigates the human (genitor)
- Crystallizes and actualizes language – empowerment through codification (code-ification, har har)
I am not so arrogant as to attempt even heuristic science of the computer. The advantage of this platform in this medium is that I can revisit this blog – a ‘living’ document – and add / retract.
It’s vital to distinguish between networks and the Internet. Barriers are no longer erected but elected; networks do not have to connect to the network.
It is important to note, I think, that the networked computer is not passive. Behaviours are modelled and exist independently in algorithms and programs and computers communicate amongst themselves (of their own volition?).
I am inclined to accept Dr. Paterson’s position that “the reader on the www is also a listener and a writer and the reader is also a listener”. I like the idea that “stories change depending on where and when and to whom they are told”; this to me seems predicated on a listener who engages in dialogue with the storyteller and I would posit that dialogue is present in literature as well – albeit at a much less visible pace.
I would also like to ask your opinion (dear reader) on the place of mixed-media – specifically comics – ‘comix‘ in the word of Art Spiegelman (Maus). Are these literature? Does a dialogue exist between the narratives – stories – superimposed upon one another? What about form – Maus is a story told through text, drawing, photograph – all of which have their own implications / connotations, especially historically what with the Holocaust as subject material. Who owns that story?
I use this as a segue into a question of ownership. Does the published author retain ownership over his story? If I interpret that information in a way other than that intended (which is almost certain) have I not created my own story in that interpretation – and therefore engaged in a dialogical process?
I’d also like to point out that this blogging platform has two editors – a “Visual” which is in my case traditionally ‘literate’ and a “Text” which reveals some of the underlying code (not to machine-code level, of course).
I do hope that this blog post has retained some academic integrity (despite my apparent effort to the contrary) and am curious to hear your thoughts, corrections and admonitions.
Best,
Joey Levesque
Works Cited:
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Illuminations. Ed. Hannah Arendt. London: Fontana, 1968. 214-218. Print.
Haggerty, Ben. “Macklemore and Ryan Lewis (Ft. Macklemore & Mary Lambert) – Same Love.” Genius. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://genius.com/Macklemore-and-ryan-lewis-same-love-lyrics>.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1:2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genres 99C Jan 2014. 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl470/unit-1/lesson-12/>.
Spiegelman, Art. “Art Gallery of Ontario.” Art Spiegelman’s CO-MIX: A Retrospective. 20 Dec. 2014. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://www.ago.net/art-spiegelmans-co-mix-a-retrospective>.
Well well Joey, just imagine a lone teacher up at 4 am to complete yesterday’s work, sitting in the small halo of a desk side lamp reading through a series of blogs answering a number of different questions all concerned with how they understand ‘story’ – essentially, the early morning light comes late in the tropics. And one blog merges into the next as the coffee put empties, until now. You stand out, very nicely indeed; Thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent and and really very clever combining of content and form. I do look forward to reading your comments. One request —
Can you please change the link to the OLD 470 website : I am inclined to accept Dr. Paterson’s position that ..”
to this link:
https://blogs.ubc.ca/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1/”
When the technicians build my new site each semester, they inevitably leave old links that lead students back to the last semester’s site – it can become a mess. But, nonetheless, I tweak and change the course each semester in response to student comments and hope to find the glitches as quickly as possible. Thanks.
Thank you very much, Dr. Paterson!
I’ve updated the link – thanks for letting me know.
Hey Joey, I like the approach you took to answering this question. I think it is great that you bring up the concept of ownership, especially given that the WWW allows us to disseminate information across the globe (and undoubtedly to others who have differing viewpoints and will subconsciously subvert what they are reading if the disagree). Certainly I think any attempt to reform/shift the interpretation of a story calls ownership into question and would generally create a space for some kind of dialogue, but does the original author lose ownership? If you write something that I try to rework have I stolen your idea, or have I created my own new story (thus giving each of us ownership within our respective interpretation). Certainly in a legalistic paradigm I would be seen to infringe upon you intellectual property and have created nothing substantial enough to generate my own claim to the product, yet as I read through Chamberlin and King’s thoughts it seems to me that stories (and therefore their ownership) are much more capricious than any records kept in the Western world. Perhaps this means that stories are purposely easy to ‘steal’ or subvert (a dangerous thought when we look at the Holocaust, as mentioned) in an effort to propagate the message inherent within the story. Just some food for thought. I also appreciate the focus on technology, you seem to have a very good grasp of what’s going on inside my computer right now (much better than I at the very least!). I was wondering what the difference between the “visual” and “text editors were, and whether you think this transformation from writing to coding in fact ends up acting as a translation, affecting the way data can be displayed and thus possibly affecting the content of our musings themselves?
Hey Nick – thanks!
Before I get into the visual / text editors I want to visit your thought on copyright / intellectual property.
I might argue that rewriting a story (we’ll stick with authorship as interpretation isn’t feasible), covering a song, remaking a movie does not ‘take away’ the authorship of the predecessor (I hesitate to use ‘original’); theft is a different story. I’m interested in copyright law but have yet to come up with a solution here (and I’m not sure anyone really has).
I was in Make yesterday [http://www.makevancouver.com/] and was told I couldn’t make a shirt (of a treasonous infant) as it would ‘break copyright’. While they’ve allowed me to do this sort of thing before – with much more prolific art – it struck me as odd that I couldn’t create a product, derivative no doubt, that was not offered by the artist. They offered to allow the shirt if I turned it into a ‘parody’, which is a ridiculous criterion for re-expression, I think, and makes visible the regulation of culture. I would like to see copyright policy that prioritizes freedom of open expression balanced with the rights of content-creators.
I like your idea of stealing stories. I would posit that the act of storytelling itself is a (the?) ‘message’ and that stories persist between tellings, or texts – a sort of intertext. Marshall McLuhan ( Understanding Media) might agree, or maybe not – ‘if you don’t like my ideas, I have others’.
As for visual v. text editors – the ‘visual’ editor is similar to the boxes we’re writing in here. You just type in your text, maybe a few pictures, add your links / formatting – very straightforward. The ‘text’ editor is based around HTML (and I think CSS) and allows you to see the top-level code that renders your content. For our purposes there isn’t much use for the ‘text’ editor (aside from resizing images/video and suchlike).
I certainly think translations of code and content are transformative; I’ve had issues with HTML tags in these comments (hence the link in brackets above). I agree that the remediation of expression – writing (and script and orality and aurality and the visual – on and on) – in code affects our dialogue and production of knowledge. That’s pretty central to my framework in this case – but I hesitate to venture too far away from objective territory; for me the medium is subordinate to the genitor [author, speaker, writer, coder, artist, expressor, etc.]. I often find that people attribute too much agency to the medium and not enough to the creator.
Thanks for your comment!
Hi, Joey
I am really interested in the topic that you chose to answer and I thank you for writing such an insightful blog post on an issue that I constantly think about during my everyday life – Does the internet/digital communication take away ownership from the author? I believe it does. I feel this way because of the fact that once something is put on the internet, it is there for the world to see. As you mentioned in your post, computers give us the ability to move barriers, communicate to wider audiences, increase the speed of communication between one another, and serves as a medium for society. This poses a problem with ownership because in some situation, theft of intellectual property may occur. The thoughts on your blog represent your thoughts and opinions, but since they have been put on the internet, with one click of the ‘print’ button, I am in a position to claim that your ideas are actually mine. With the computer as a median, we have lost that sense of ownership to our ideas that comes from a personal handwriting style, or a handwritten signature.
Thank you for pointing out how the computer represents/replaces the user. I believe the computer has taken away the speaker/listener dynamic that is so important in our communication. The computer screen serves as a barrier between the story teller and the listener, and I feel as if this is a negative aspect of the digital era of communication that we are currently residing in.
Regards,
Rajin Sidhu
Hi Rajin – thanks for your thoughts.
I certainly will not argue that IP theft isn’t ‘easier’ with computers; I will state that even if someone was to claim credit for work posted by another, the author could – and should – file a grievance in court; probably copyright would be upheld.
I would argue that digital signatures – encryption, hashes, my iPhone’s fingerprint scanner – have replaced the classic ‘signature’; I don’t mind the ‘disappearance’ – perhaps ‘backgrounding’ is better – of handwriting (which in my mind was ‘threatened’ by the printing press and typewriter much earlier) as I, for one, still sometimes write letters and take notes by hand.
As for the speaker / listener dynamic – I would refer you to YouTube, chat rooms and the like (Skype!). Digital communication makes possible instantaneous communication across time(zones) and space; I was able to speak with my partner in Spain for nine months by virtue of Skype. I would argue that the screen is not a barrier but a window.
Thanks again for your thoughts – nice to meet you.