Digitizing Permanence

Reading through Craig Mod’s Post-Artifact Books and Publishing, and seeing his many points about the artifact itself (the book), in particular, got me thinking about how the author interprets his medium and how it shapes his thinking about the act of writing. In the article, Mod says, speaking of traditional printed books, “…submitting that file to be printed is to place ultimate faith in the book. To believe — because you must for the sake of sanity! — that this is the best you can do given the constraints. And you will have to live with the results forever.” For one I thought this was quite a statement! But we live in an age where massive book stores chains (R.I.P. Borders) and newspaper companies go out of business for not keeping up with the digital demand of the 21st century, where seemingly every kid on the block has a new iPod Touch, and where new technologies are constantly being explored and melded into each other, the role of the traditional author can very well be changing as we know it. Thus the issue of immutability is one that can’t be avoided. In one sense I thought this seems to give a clear advantage to the printed book; e.g. given the fact that authors do have to think about the potential permanence of their work, and what that means when actually printing and distributing to the masses, would that not cause them to think more deeply and carefully about their ideas and refine them down to a crisp permanent fixture? On the other end of the spectrum we see the digital, in which it’s as easy as a simple hit of the delete key (I’ve personally done it with this very blogpost already many times over!) to completely eradicate the author’s work. It changes the very landscape of the writing world: instead of always having to be sure of your concrete ideas and being required to repeat these ideas over and over, one can simply throw out ideas into the digital landscape. Not that it is impossible to have a permanent digital reality, but when has a website truly lasted the test of time? Instead it becomes more about adapting to the environment and technology we’ve been surrounded with. What Mod argues is that this new “experience” is expanded beyond the individual and towards a community oriented, connected, and fast-paced society. What I am wondering now is not only on how the modern author thinks about his own ideas but whether these ideas are negatively impacted by becoming less developed and more raw, and how that will affect the future of literature.

2 thoughts on “Digitizing Permanence

  1. Though I hope the Kirschenbaum article has convinced you that nothing is truly ever deleted. The delete key is probably the most egregiously named key on the entire keyboard (not that there are many candidates for this spot). All delete really means is “erase from my screen.” Whatever you erased still exists somewhere…

  2. very true (I’ll freely admit I wrote this blogpost before I read that article) but wouldn’t that nevertheless affect the mindsets of the authors themselves regardless? e.g. their ideas seemingly become less concrete as they write and they are more willing to throw out raw ideas as opposed to really thinking about and developing what they are producing?

Comments are closed.