When I began reading this book, I was initially skeptical of many of the author’s ideas and his methods for explaining them. However, as I continued to read, I began to realize that Darren Wershler-Henry and others cited in the book were making some accurate observations and assertions about the typewriter and the ideas and myths that surround it.
One example of this is David Sedaris’ notion that writing on a typewriter can create the illusion of “doing more work” than simply writing on a computer. When a person writes on a computer, it is easy to delete and fix mistakes but this is not the case on a typewriter. Often times, one must start from the beginning of a paper in order to fix a mistake made on a typewriter, causing multiple pages to be crumpled up and thrown in the trash in order to be replaced by new ones with corrected text. I see this as an accurate thought partly because I find myself doing this when I am writing things by hand. I will often scrap a piece of paper, throw it in the trash, and begin writing again on a new piece, thus creating the illusion that I might be doing more work than if I had done my writing on a PC.
Wershler-Henry also points out the fact that typewriters are frequently seen on book covers and other print items in order to provide a sense of authenticity. This is something that I had not previously thought about but is very true. Even though they are seldom or never used today, we often see typewriters pictured in modern print and online media and I can see how this is used to convey a sense of “authenticity” and “hard work” in a piece of writing. One of the most interesting examples of the usage of a picture of the typewriter in modern media can be found towards the end of this book. On page 283, there is a poster featuring a girl at a typewriter with a message promoting the idea that blogging is an important part of American democracy.
One part of this book that I thought was particularly accurate and timely was the section when the author discusses the possibility of the end of journalism. While I think that the demise of the typewriter is not and will not contribute to the “end of journalism,” I think the ever improving and increasing use of computers and Web 2.0 technologies is bringing about the end of journalism as we know it. The 24/7 news cycle is prevalent on the internet and now has participants that can contribute while simply sitting in their homes at their computers. Typewriters and print media are no longer as necessary or as popular as they once were in our society. This is evidenced, in concert with recent economic woes, by the closure of several print newspapers.
One of the most important thoughts in this book can be found in the author’s discussion of the relationship between typewriter and the typist. This discussion, in my opinion, is also analogous to the relationship between the typist and a computer and the writer and his/her pen. The author pushes, what I think is an inaccurate notion that the typewriter could be “pulling the strings” of the typist. However, I think looking through this lens at the process of writing with a typewriter (or computer keyboard) makes a logical point that writing is a “collective enterprise” no matter how many parties (defined as people or equipment) are involved. In order for the writing to be completed, each party must hold up its end of the bargain. The writer must provide the ideas and the motivation behind the writing but the typewriter and each of its individual keys and parts is responsible for providing the means for creating the text and placing the words on paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment