A friend of mine, Anthony Alofsin, started a blog. He's primarily know for his contributions to the field of architecture, as a professor, and author of over 20 books on the subject. His interest in blogging, however, is literature, and -- i think -- challenging, and subverting a few of today's fashionable institutions of thought.
His first entry contains a manifesto:
Beyond mere entertainment, literature, achieved through writing, can still be subversive, can still seduce, and undermine. When words move beyond simplistic entertainment, they deal with ideas and themes that exist across time. Literature brings us to think about concepts that no longer appear in any discourse and are not so present in the dynamic digital world: life, death, loss, dignity, excellence, paradox, respect, irony, civility, altruism, all the varieties of tragedy, and joy too. Also, good literature provides the pleasure of words. Just as bloggers get immense pleasure in putting their words together, so does the literary writer. The language and syntax may be different, but underneath the satisfaction is not so different.
I'm reminded of George Orwell's 1946 essay, The Prevention of Literature. Writes Orwell:
Newspapers will presumably continue until television technique reaches a higher level, but apart from newspapers it is doubtful even now whether the great mass of people in the industrialized countries feel the need for any kind of literature. ...Probably novels and stories will be completely superseded by film and radio productions. Or perhaps some kind of low grade sensational fiction will survive, produced by a sort of conveyor-belt process that reduces human initiative to the minimum.
He goes on predict today's publishing industry.
Even more machine-like is the production of short stories, serials, and poems for the very cheap magazines. Papers such as the Writer abound with advertisements of literary schools, all of them offering you ready-made plots at a few shillings a time. Some, together with the plot, supply the opening and closing sentences of each chapter. Others furnish you with a sort of algebraical formula by the use of which you can construct plots for yourself. Others have packs of cards marked with characters and situations, which have only to be shuffled and dealt in order to produce ingenious stories automatically. It is probably in some such way that the literature of a totalitarian society would be produced, if literature were still felt to be necessary. Imagination — even consciousness, so far as possible — would be eliminated from the process of writing. Books would be planned in their broad lines by bureaucrats, and would pass through so many hands that when finished they would be no more an individual product than a Ford car at the end of the assembly line. It goes without saying that anything so produced would be rubbish; but anything that was not rubbish would endanger the structure of the state. As for the surviving literature of the past, it would have to be suppressed or at least elaborately rewritten.
What Orwell couldn't have predicted was that it was the market (as a social institution) -- not a totalitarian government -- that exiled literature to die alone on a deserted island. He couldn't have forseen that the that his day's newspaper, and radio ads -- not the marxist and facist movements that he feared at the time -- would fulfill his fears.
Television is the fist that beats most American's minds into the familiar dull submission of conformity and lack of imagination.
-- Shut the fuck up donny. Cowabunga dude. Don't have a cow, man. What's your favorite show? --
Ad people pay for eyeballs, and TV producers try to capture as many eyeballs as they can. TV isn't stupid because a conspiracy wants us to be stupid: its stupid because we all tend to gravitate towards the same stupid things, and if the goal is eyeballs, go with the fart joke, guy getting hit in the nuts, celebrity freak out. Almost no one can turn away.
So far, the effect of the internet on the ad driven culture of the last 40 years is so brutally apparent that, its hardly worth reiterating. The twilight that's enveloped newspapers, and magazines shall fall over television as we know too.
Clearly, this trend is not bad news for literature. However, the internet isn't a golden angel from the sky. More importantly, don't listen to ANYTHING made of gold that descends from the air, for its tongue speaks only lies and treachery!
The internet wave -- in so far as a disruptive cultural influence will not stop -- recession or no recession. Its a communications tool, and the only human urge more predictable than sex is the urge to communicate.
In so far as literature is concerned, I think the trends benefit writers who blur fiction/non-fiction, and pack the most force in the smallest space. There's enough bloody subject matter writers on the internet -- what's needed are writers that can write small, beautiful works, regularly -- and can do so in a way that -- apart from being beautiful as prose -- evokes strong emotions, or makes people laugh. In otherwords, god like figures.
Notes:
*My blog started out as a tiresome, staunchly progressive politics rant blog, and look what it has evolved to: a tiresome staunchly pro drupal development/rant blog.
Comments
Everything in this world
Everything in this world contains similarities and differences just like in technologies, it also contains advantages and disadvantages. Today, with the help of internet, making a research is more comfortable and easy. It is just depend upon us on how to deal with it. But it doesn’t mean that it will ruin our literature. Anyway, maybe most of you are familiar with Twitter. Twitter, the social networking site, and cyberspace phenomenon, has been utilized by personalities such as Ashton Kutcher and wife Demi Moore, the director Kevin Smith, singer Lily Allen, and LaVar Burton, the actor known for his role on Star Trek as Geordie the engineer, as well as host of the Reading Rainbow and his role in Alex Haley's Roots. Users post updates, whatever they want to say, questions and answers, in 140 word clips called Tweets. Membership is free, so you don't have to get installment loans to get onto Twitter.
Everything in this world
Everything in this world contains similarities and differences just like in technologies, it also contains advantages and disadvantages. But it just depend upon us on how to deal with it. Today, with the help of internet, making a research is more comfortable and easy. It is just depend upon us on how to deal with it. But it doesn’t mean that it will ruin our literature. Anyway, maybe most of you are familiar with Twitter. Twitter, the social networking site, and cyberspace phenomenon, has been utilized by personalities such as Ashton Kutcher and wife Demi Moore, the director Kevin Smith, singer Lily Allen, and LaVar Burton, the actor known for his role on Star Trek as Geordie the engineer, as well as host of the Reading Rainbow and his role in Alex Haley's Roots. Users post updates, whatever they want to say, questions and answers, in 140 word clips called Tweets. Membership is free, so you don't have to get installment loans to get onto Twitter.
Orwell came pretty close, you
Orwell came pretty close, you have to give my credit for that. But really it was a no brainer. We've always been a culture that consumes everything, from food to content in whatever form is the fastest available. That's why blogs are so popular. :)
Well, what I find so
Well, what I find so disturbing about orwell's predictions is that they were made in the 1940's.
Its a strong trend that lets you see it 60ish years before the fact. Especially that accuracy. Though I'll admit being born in 1982 -- just about anything 10 years before me sounds quaint [not that I think that's "kewl" like the kids these days say].
I disagree that blogs are the fastest food you can get on the net... rather I think most specifically Google News fills that niche. Blogs are so popular because they are doing something that that big time journalism isn't. They are taking sides, they are making judgment calls, they are calling out "bullshit" before they should (if they wanted to be on the safe side).
Sure its all irresponsible (in a way), but I think the the rise of blogs is really the failure of establishment journalism. You can't have decay without a dead body, no?
I have to disagree. If
I have to disagree. If television hadn't already been invented, it would have been impressive. Thirty-five years ago my step father said to me that one day everybody would have a computer. That was when computers used punch cards and filled rooms. I don't think that was too impressive, either - just acute observation of the human ability to leverage technology.
I would suggest that blogs and wikis _are_ fast food in the sense that they satisfy an immediate need. But like fast-food, the probable negatives are limitless. I recently had a discussion with my former boss on the way the internet and wikipaedia in particular create truth rather than reflect it. His view was that if something is the popular belief then it is truth. Time, then, for a religion headcount.
Orwell was wrong about film superseding literature. The three percent that read before still do. The other ninety-seven percent are now better catered-for which tends to obscure the continuing popularity of books. The content is still there and growing, but the media by which it is delivered is changing. The Sony Reader would have no market at all if people weren't interested in literature. It's the same with music - people still listen, but the way music is produced, sold and delivered is changing rapidly.
I don't believe books are any more or less formulaic than they used to be, but unfortunately films and particularly mass-appeal television are.
Newspapers, in Britain and Spain (where I now live), don't seem to have really suffered from the internet. Curiously Spain doesn't appear to have 'gutter-press' as they do in Britain and newspaper reading here is a serious business. The big casualties have been magazines whose production costs were heavily subsidised by advertising. Remember those inch-and-a-half thick computer magazines with very little editorial content?
Off topic a little, Orwell's 1984 vision of Britain is on the verge of being exceeded: In 2006 there was a cctv camera for every fourteen people. In some areas they have introduced speaking cameras to enable 'controllers' to communicate with offenders. With 97% ownership of mobile phones and pinpoint tracking, almost everybody in the country aged about eleven upwards can be tracked. Combine that geolocation with cctv face recognition....(source for stats: wikitruth). And worse, Tesco (a supermarket chain) share their loyalty card information with Inland Revenue and MI5 as, presumably, do others. Now Gordon Brown (the prime minister) wants to fit microphones to lamp posts to eavesdrop those terrorist planning meetings that always seem to be conducted in such well-lit public places.
And I'm thinking of moving back there.
Post new comment