Writing Space Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print (2nd Edition) Chapters 1-3, Jay David Bolter

Jay David Bolter is quick to announce the “late age of print.” This “late age” is determined by the uncertainty of the role of print media, in the face of alternatives. Bolter refers to film, radio, television – and most significantly here – “digital media.”

My initial reaction to this first chapter was to question his assertion that any of these are true, immediate rivals to print media. Film, radio, and television have been constants for the past 100 years. Have Americans begun reading less during this time? Arguably, sure. So OK, Bolter might have a point here.

However throughout this first chapter he overstates his point, of the eventual demise of print. On page five he points out that electronic versions of Brave New World and Jurassic Park have been purchased by thousands. This number is hardly impressive. He points out the existence of “specialized devices styled as electronic books” on page eight, but neglects to mention that all such ventures have been commercial failures. Six years after Bolter’s book, and we’re still reading it in print, and there is still no elegant solution to reading our “computer screens” in bed.

The second chapter is based on the idea of writing as a technology, and with the means (whether handwritten, with printing press, or electronic) having a measurable impact on what (and how) we write. This is logical. The printing press determined many things through its limitations – text was linear, with clean, straight margins and uniformity.

The most prominent argument against the demise of print is that, for even the most tech-savvy, nobody wants to read full-length novels on a computer screen. This is a product of various things, chiefly the limitations of the technology. Some of these limitations will be overcome in time, and others we’ll learn to live with. But if the media determines the content (which might make sense, although Bolter disagrees) then won’t the ubiquitous digital media change the way we read? Those other new(er) channels noted – film, television, radio – have either changed or reflected society’s shortening attention span. With digital media it stands to reason that shorter, more interactive (multimedia, if you will) will become the dominate form of expression. And, indeed, it already has.

Bolter explains these changes (and could have done so much more succinctly) on pages 16-17.

Writing technologies are never external agents that invade and occupy the minds of their users. These technologies are natural or naturalized only in the sense that they are constituted by the interaction of physical materials and human practices. No technology, not even the apparently autonomous computer, can ever function as a writing space in the absence of human writers and readers.

So the transition from novels and 2,000-word newspaper articles to short several hundred word digital texts accompanied with audio or video is what society wants. Whether this is true or not is debatable. The printing press created clean, minimalistic, uniform texts. Was this “wanted” by society, or was the ability to crank them out the real benefit, and straight margins only an acceptable side-effect?

Likewise, is the short piece accompanied by aesthetic designs want we want, or are we writing within the limits of the technology? Bolter would say we want it like this. The common rule of thumb among the blogging community suggests a standard entry length of around the size of, say, your average op-ed column; and not nearly as long as a detailed news entry on the NY Times. So is this a product of the media’s limitations, or the result of what consumers (readers) want? Anyone’s guess.