Silliman's Blog

Thoughts regarding the digital book:

Digital technology could save some of our forests. But Huggies may still survive, and thrive.

Throwaway books are pulpled and dumpstered by the ton. A good argument could certainly be made for putting such instantly disposable commodities in a more ephemeral, and less wasteful, form.

On the other hand, plastic is worse, in some ways, than cellulose. We already now have a big problem with electronic devices--how to recycle them? Dig-books just add to that dump.

CD's are much easier to pirate than books. Will authors lose further control of their work?

If books "die" will we revert once again--at least partly--to an "oral" culture in which the physical evidence of recorded speech (composition) is overwhelmed by the performance media? From Homer to Rap in two millennia....

How will texts be saved if they're only recorded in an ephemeral data retrieval device? Won't that severely endanger the continuity of the material text? As the continuous building mass of work piles up, might there come a watershed day when society simply gives up and "let's it go"? Like pushing buttons and saying simply, "Well, there goes Lucretius [ZAP!]" "There goes Trollope [ZAP!]" We don't need those hoary old farts, bye-bye! Like the Library at Alexandria--the great fire! Woops! Someone blew up the CD wing of the Smithsonian--bye bye!
 

Watched the Fallingwater video--which contains the claim by its present docent/resident--that it is the greatest architectural structure in the United States, a claim that I'm sure would be widely disputed. How about Jefferson's House?

Then watched Glenn Gould play the Goldberg. Reminded me of Larry Eigner, hunched over his typewriter in the same rapt state of composition/performance--similar geniuses, and brought tears to my eyes.
 

That Luddite "books are doomed" author made the common mistake of thinking that because something is Digital it will, therefore, be prestend in an Ugly way.

This person probably uses a PC, because Windows is ugly and inelegant. Not everything that is computerized need be soulless - It is foolishness to think that the presentation of digital books will be some kind of square flat graphicsless Metropolis-on-screen. All of those elements - design, font, atmosphere, etc. - will be present, just in a digital form.

Also, who cares if there becomes a competitiveness about having the most books? As if this Doesn't Already exist with the paper kind? It will just be in digital form.

We should be viewing this for all of its possibilities in terms of text-presentation and distribution.

Books have that certain 'atmosphere' becauese they're nostalgic and old, not because they're better. I mean, I miss the hum and ring that you used to hear when you used to sign on with dial-up. Awwww, those were the days.
 

As a former Bloomingtonian, it's always nice to hear John Mellencamp say deliciously unkind things about the Bush administration, proving that not all of us Hoosiers are rubes. (Hey, some of us are even Cole Porter and James Dean). If only his music weren't so bland most of the time. To be fair, I haven't heard the new album, except for the Chevy song. It's nice that he wanted to include a more well-rounded view of American history in the commercial, but I don't know if it has the effect he was going for. People will probably assume Chevy is indeed trying to capitalize on tragedy. Oh well, it's the thought that counts, right?

P.S. From the article: "['Rodeo Clown'] isn’t listed on the packaging and appears several minutes after the album’s last track." Looks like the fuddy-duddy Times has never heard of a "hidden track" before.
 

rain delay:

I think you miss the point entirely. It isn't about the "potentials" of the internet, and what miracles can be accomplished as the computer chip becomes more and more efficient. The point is the technologies of recordation and storage are advancing at an unprecedented rate, but the continuities of previous contents are really in question. As civilisation advances in time, its previous relics and residuals either are discarded or saved. Much is lost. How much will be lost in future, if the means by which we handle this stuff keep morphing faster and faster? Libraries have been dumpstering stuff with increasing passion, in favor of googling and surfing. Is this wise? As a child of the computer age, you tend to discount the value of what may be lost, thinking the currency of data trumps these older "inefficient" repositories. But does it? As we leave tape and printed images behind and replace them with CD's and harddrive storage, we look forward within a generation to at least two or three more steps of transition. At each threshold, people decide about how, and what, to carry forward. We've seen already how ruthless the marketplace for data can be. "Just throw this shit out, we've got Microsoft and Intel, what more do we need?" The challenge today is to avoid being seduced by new technologies (and their manufacturers) into thinking that the "wisdom" of the past and its "old-fashioned" vehicles like books, can be abandoned. It's like the genetic richness of the earth. Build another highway, kill another frog. Who needs those frogs? Let'em go. Who needs Andrew Marvell? Who needs George Oppen? Let'em go. We've got live rap and kids shooting each other in the streets. Wow, what could be more important than the present? The future!

We still have copies of the Gutenberg Bible, printed more than 650 years ago. It doesn't take a genius to see that your PC or Mac is destined for the trash heap within a generation. Programming will change even sooner. How long will Google survive--10 more years?

And in the meantime, we throw books into landfills, so Bill Gates can make another few billions of dollars. This is VERY shortsighted.

Let's get real.
 

Poetry v Song

This has always held fascination for me, and I always lean toward song lyrics being more poetry than poetry being poetry, if poetry means communicating something about the human condition. Of course poetry does not always serve that function, if, now, ever.

But I think of Bill Morrissesy or Bob Franke, both New England songwriters or John Gorka at his best or Greg Brown or Lucinda Williams or Steve Earle and of course Bob Dylan. Of late I like Ryan Adams for his unedited and prolific songwriting akin to poetry. What poet has not credited Paul Simon for his unvarnished, uncredited debt to John Ashberry.

I think songwriters serve to fill the gap left by poets such as Robert Frost, but more so now, they fill the gab left by the surealists.