Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


by ktylerconk on Flickr, CC BY

One of my favorite things about the old beaux-arts Carnegie libraries is that they usually feature inspirational quotations inscribed deep into their marble friezes, architraves, and whatnot. For example, you may recognize the line in the image above from the New York Public Library. “But above all things Truth beareth away the victory.” Sounds pretty awesome, right? It’s almost as if the library is gently reminding visitors that it’s in the truth-business and since truth is the most powerful thing in the world, if you just stop in and look around, you’re bound to come out a winner! Actually, that’s exactly what it means; the line comes from the King James version of 1 Esdras and the dude who said it ended up winning a speech-writing contest hosted by King Darius I.* (For any millennials reading this, Darius was the dad of the evil king in 300.)

Anyway, inspirational quotations are sort of a mainstay in libraries and, to that end, the new library here at UTC will feature around 100 quotes in and around the building. To facilitate the short turn-around given by the architect, we recently asked the campus community to submit quotations related to libraries, learning, education, and the like. Of course, the last thing we want is to chisel something into granite only to have a student or professor loudly declaim against a misquotation. So, we’ve been attempting to verify as many quotes as possible and, to date, we’ve fact-checked 298 quotations, proverbs, aphorisms, and sayings. In the process, I’ve had time to think about how something as simple as a quotation can act as a barometer of how we understand truth and knowledge in libraries. Allow me to explain…

First, here’s a quote we received that has been attributed to Margaret Mead:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

You know, that would look pretty cool in one of the group study rooms. Poking around Google, you’ll see the quote repeated in most of the popular quotation websites. It’s included in dozens of books of quotations. It’s listed at wikiquote.org as appearing in the 1984 book Curing Nuclear Madness, edited by Frank Sommers and Tana Dineen (Toronto: Meuthen, p. 158). The American Library Association includes it at libraryquotes.org. It even sounds like the kind of thing Margaret Mead would say. And, to top it off, it’s quoted on literally every page at the official Institute for Intercultural Studies website. You know, the institute that Margaret danged Mead founded. Obviously, I marked it as verified and I approved it for use in the new building.

Except, I didn’t. Even with multiple sources–some highly reputable like the ALA and the IIS–I marked the Mead quote as unverified and unfit for use in the new library. Popular quotation websites are, as most librarians know, filled to the brim with misquotations. The book mentioned on WikiQuote is an incredibly obscure book of New Age social psychology written by a sex therapist. The ALA list of library quotes lists “The newsletter of the Friends of the Largo Public Library, FL” as the “primary” source.** Even the IIS admits (on the FAQ page) that “we have been unable to locate when and where it was first cited.” The one thing missing is a primary source. Without a book, article, interview, or other work by or featuring Margaret Mead, I’m not going to call the quote verified and it won’t go in the library.

Am I being stubborn? I suppose some librarians may think I am. And here we can point to a rather mundane example of how our philosophical theories and attitudes inform professional practice. In contrast to the common argument that librarians need more discussion of practice and less theory, I want to show how deep philosophical convictions play a real role in professional practice. Let’s look at three common librarian attitudes towards truth: constructionism, pragmatism, and realism.

First, if you consider the massive amounts of agreement regarding the Mead quote to be sufficient verification for using it in a library, then you are most likely a social constructionist. This is a somewhat common view and it holds that the truth is whatever we have agreed is the truth. Typically, this agreement takes place through social processes. For the social constructionist, we are justified in believing that Mead said it…because everyone agrees she said it. Further, the social constructionist approach is highly skeptical of authority or credibility. To the social constructionist, what matters is reliability or consensus (Lankes, 2007)*** so it’s the consensus about Mead’s quote that matters, not the nitpicking about primary sources. Dave Lankes of “new librarianship” fame is a good example of a social constructionist.

Second, you may believe that the potential value of the quote for students and the lack of proof that Mead didn’t say it are enough to consider it verified. In this case, you are most likely a pragmatist. That is, you probably believe that truth is whatever we find most useful to believe. For the pragmatist, the quote should be verified because Mead said it for all intents and purposes. Practically speaking, adding Mead’s name gives the quote social and intellectual cachet and doesn’t deprive anyone of their claim to authorship. Likewise, practically speaking, attributing the quote to Mead helps spread Mead’s rather important and compelling worldview. Nitpicking over primary source documents misses the point: truth is about what is most practical and useful to believe, not what is “out there” in the world, and believing that Mead said it is more useful than attributing it to an anonymous source.  Lots of librarians identify as pragmatists (see Crowley, 2005, Spanning the theory-practice divide in library and information science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.).

Finally, if you withhold judgment about the quote and refuse to verify it in the light of massive social and practical agreement, you may just be a realist. The realist takes as a starting point the belief that Mead either did or did not say something about thoughtful committed people. There is an objective fact of the matter and determining that fact requires absolute a high degree of certainty. A recorded interview, a text written by Mead, a letter…the bar for the realist is set fairly high and a verified quote can only be one with a clear, direct, and unambiguous provenance. No matter what people agree she said, or what practical exigencies require, the realist approach hinges on (for lack of a better term) objective evidence. True, some may argue that a book or letter or interview are just texts and texts can be wrong. This is why realism (at least in fact-checking quotations) is very concerned with authority control. This is also why realism does give preference to expertise in the forms of authority and credibility. Interestingly, the realist (and the pragmatist, to a certain extent) does think that consensus and reliability are important. But, that’s qualified as consensus by credible sources and reliable at leading to truth. Ultimately, the realist position is to only call the quote verified to the extent that objective, authoritative evidence supports it.

Now, in many (most?) cases, all three theories will agree. Did Francis Bacon say that “knowledge is power”? To the constructionist everyone agrees he did, so he did. To the pragmatist, it makes the most practical sense to accept that he did, so he did. For the realist, you can find “nam et ipsa scientia potestas est” in the original text of Bacon’s Meditationes Sacræ, so he did. All three theories agree that Bacon’s immortal words are verified. It’s only in the difficult cases that theory or worldview will start to distinguish decisions. This is especially visible in quotes attributed to the most famous and prolific thinkers: Einstein, Twain, King, Angelou, Jefferson, Franklin…anyone whose name can lend gravitas to a pithy saying. And, I should add, this isn’t just a library issue, as the recent proliferation of Tea Party misquotations adequately demonstrates. Indeed, as a realist, I get pretty ticked off when politicians and pundits misattribute or just invent quotes from people like Jefferson, Paine, Madison, and other important folk. Especially when those false quotations stand in direct opposition to what their supposed speakers actually believed (as is usually the case). For those interested in a decidedly realist approach to fact-checking and verification of famous quotations, I recommend the Quote Investigator.

In the end, does any of this matter for practicing librarians? Aren’t we more concerned with the day-to-day practice of librarianship, not abstract philosophical navel-gazing? Well, I suppose that depends on what you want to take away from it. I, for one, think it matters to a certain degree. In information literacy, what do concepts like credibility, relevance, or accuracy mean if not in light of these philosophical worldviews? In scholarly communication, isn’t the emphasis on impact factors and citations evidence of the social constructionist push for consensus building? Isn’t research in evidenced-based librarianship evidence of pragmatic or realist tendencies? Where you fall on these and other issues in large pat depends on your philosophical outlook. So, does philosophy guide practice? As Sydney’s Paul Redding just wrote, in response to Australian MP Jamie Briggs’ assertion that philosophical inquiry isn’t practical,

“In the division of intellectual labour, philosophers work mainly at the level of the hinges between thoughts, on those concepts deeply embedded within the argumentative threads weaving through our culture. But these are threads that have started somewhere with the formation of beliefs, and end somewhere in actions. As the concepts on which philosophers work are typically located a long way from where these threads start or terminate, philosophical research is generally described as “pure” rather than “applied”. But “pure” does not mean “irrelevant”. Who would question that the activity of finding and attempting to fix problems in our collective thinking was a relevant thing to do?”

Yes. Philosophical worldviews affect practice. It’s called praxis and it deserves as much attention as it can muster. You can quote me on that.


by DennisM2 on Flickr. CC BY

* Actually, he won so hard that Darius gave him financial and political backing to lead the Jews out of Babylon and build the Second Temple. Dude’s name? Zerubbabel.

** Just an aside: the ALA libraryquotes.org website treats newsletters and desk calendars as “primary sources.” Of all the professional organizations you’d expect to understand “primary source” you’d think the ALA would be right at the top.

*** However, Lankes’ discussion seems pretty inconsistent. He argues that “the most common way to become an authority…is through reliability” (681) and then claims that “reliability and authority can be seen as opposite ends on a spectrum” (681). Are these interlocking concepts or polar opposites? Lankes is unclear. In any event, the realist advocates for authority and reliability, not authority instead of reliability.

Read Full Post »

Photo by loneblackrider on Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In my last post, I posed an ethical scenario involving whether or not to waive library late fees. Sixteen people voted and here’s the breakdown:

Case 1, The Harry Potter fan: The vote was 10 to 6 in favor of letting the casual reader check out the last book in the Harry Potter series.

Case 2, The G.E.D. student: The vote was 13 to 3 in favor of letting an unemployed woman check out a G.E.D. study guide despite her library fines.

Case 3, The stranger: The vote was 11 to 4 in favor of letting a complete stranger check out a G.E.D. study guide, despite library fines.

Most of the comments in favor of waiving library fines argued that library fines are a disincentive to use the library, rather than their intended function as a disincentive to keep books beyond their due dates. Most of the arguments against waiving the fines pointed to the importance of personal responsibility on the parts of our patrons. In both cases, the fundamental issue seems to be the fairness, though interpreted quite differently. Those who wanted to waive fines tended to argue that fine policies in and of themselves are unfair to patrons. Those who did not want to waive the fines tended to argue that consistent application of library policy is necessary to make the policy fair. Finally, several comments pointed out that an ILS typically allows staff to override holds on accounts, so there may be other options.

I’m not surprised that most people would let the woman in Case 2 check out the GED study guide; I know I would. It seems to be a straightforward test of our commitment to improving  our community. However, I am rather surprised at the vote for Case 1. Waive or override fines because someone really wants to read a Harry Potter book? Really? Perhaps I didn’t make the scenario realistic enough. For those who would waive the fine for the Harry Potter fan, what would you do in the following case:

Case 4, Pumpkin Spice Latte: A woman comes to the circulation desk to check out Fifty Shades of Grey only to find that she must pay a $10 fine. She admits that she has the cash but she really wanted to buy a pumpkin spice latte after leaving the library. Would you override the hold on her account or waive the fine?

I’m not going to answer this one, because I’d like another shot at starting a new discussion. In the interests of getting a more even split, I’m going to propose another library dilemma, one that happens every Fall semester at our reference desk. Let me know what you think in the comments. (No Google Form this time; it didn’t work the way I had hoped.)

Photo by selva on Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0


A library service scenario: The music assignment

You work at the reference desk in an academic library. Every semester, Professor Jones assigns a devilishly tricky “library treasure hunt” to his music history students. The assignment consists of 50 music trivia questions and no guidance as to where to find the answers. Here’s an easy one: how many times did Kirsten Flagstad sing the role of Brünnhilde in the 1939-1940 season at the Metropolitan Opera? (Yes, that’s a real question on a real assignment.) After several semesters of the same assignment, the reference desk has put together a document with the answers to all 50 questions. How would you handle the following situations…

Case 1: The last-minute student

The day before the assignment is due, a frazzled student comes to the reference desk and asks for the answers to half of the trivia questions. Do you give her the answers? If so, why? If not, do you provide some other type of assistance?

Case 2: The very last minute student

Ten minutes before the assignment is due, a frazzled student comes to the reference desk and asks for the answers to all of the trivia questions. Do you give him the answers? If so, why? If not, do you provide some other type of assistance?

Case 3: The music history professor

Professor Smith is considering assigning a similar project for his music history students. He has an answer form with half of the answers filled in and he knows that he could probably find all of the answers on his own if he spent a few hours, but he asks you for half of the answers so he can save some time. Do you give him the answers? If so, why? If not, do you provide some other type of assistance?


What, exactly, are the ethical dilemmas here? Do all three patrons have the same information need? Does the amount of work each patron has already put in matter? Do the research abilities of the patrons matter? Would your answer change if you worked in a public library? Can you create another case that leads to additional ethical dilemmas? Feel free to comment below!



Read Full Post »

Sorry I haven’t updated in a while: since I quit using Google, I’ve spent most of my time in the fetal position under my desk. I’ll post an update on Google really soon, I promise, but in the meantime…

Hoo-boy! Have I got a job for you! You may remember that the library at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga recently hired two new librarian positions. Well, we’re at it again, and this time we’re looking for a Web Design & Instruction Librarian. You can read through the ad yourself (here’s the detailed description), but it goes something like this. We’re looking for a forward-thinking librarian to help redesign and then manage our website and content management systems, as well as play an active role in our award-winning instruction program (multiple PRIMO databases and last year’s ACRL President’s Program Innovation Award, if you must ask). Web-development + library instruction = this job.*

The job ad explains what you’d be doing, but I’d also like to point out that you’d be joining a kick-ass team of librarians. Our librarians are well-established presences at national and international conferences; ALA, ACRL, Internet Librarian, LOEX, CIL, Brick and Click, you name it and we’re presenting. We’re also at the forefront of some pretty cool new initiatives. Library Boing Boing? That’s our guy. OCLC’s Web-Scale Management Services? That’s us, too. Trust me, if you want to get creative or pursue novel initiatives, this is the place to be.

What’s that? You’re worried that a gun rack won’t fit in your Prius and you don’t know how to make moonshine? Well, don’t worry, Chattanooga is actually a remarkably progressive city. Did you know that the New York Times recently placed Chattanooga in it’s top 45 travel destinations in the world? (Granted, we kind of have an in) Chattanooga is also routinely ranked as one of the most livable cities in the U.S., due in no small part to a great housing market, a nationally respected art scene, a killer restaurant scene (weighted towards locavorism), the nation’s fastest Internet speeds, internationally renowned outdoor activities, and environmentalism in your face (from the solar farm at the airport to the electric-car recharging stations to more LEED buildings than you can shake a sustainably harvested stick at). What’s not to love? We’re like a smaller version of Portland…with fewer hipsters and more fried chicken.

"I use eleven herbs and spices...you've probably never heard of them."

So…ummm…yeah. Come work at UTC. Who knows, in a few months you could have the office right next to mine!


*And, on a personal note, I want to give a big shout-out to the person you’d be following: Caitlin Shanley, who recently left us for a sweet job at Penn. If you apply for this job and are even half as awesome as Caitlin, I know you’ll be hired. (And, Shanley, if you’re reading this, I tried to send you a care package of your favorite things, but my barbecue pit died out before I could catch a squirrel. Sorry.)


Read Full Post »

Non sequitur

(1) This blog is about libraries.
(2) This video was found in a library.
(3) This video is relevant to this blog. QED.

Read Full Post »

Just a placeholder

My real blog is over at http://senseandref.blogspot.com/

Read Full Post »

This, I think, is the best account of what transliteracy means for libraries:

Introducing transliteracy: What does it mean to academic libraries? by Tom Ipri

I’ll follow-up soon.

Read Full Post »

Today, I want to take a moment to comment on the inappropriate use of a certain Socratic dialogue, namely, Phaedrus.

Why the Phaedrus?
I keep seeing Plato’s Phaedrus appear in discussions of new technologies. In particular, the following passage has become quite popular (the section in boldface is most cited, I include the rest for context):

At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. (Phaedrus, 274c-275b) (my emphasis)1

This passage is usually used as a rhetorical device in the argument against skeptics about new technologies. Briefly, some people are decrying the rise of the internet, ebooks, and social media because of perceived effects on the intelligence, reasoning, or social aptitude of future generations (cf. Bauerlein or Carr). Defenders of the new will gleefully point to the passage from the Phaedrus and explain that every major technological advancement is accompanied by portentous omens of dire consequences…even the very print books that the Luddites are trying to defend! Ha! Silly cynics…even your favorite technology was once deemed too radical! (EDIT: I removed quotes to other blogs to avoid the possibility of cherry-picking or misinterpretation. Thanks Andromeda for the hat tip! Still, people do use Plato improperly. Maybe I’ll blame it on a misreading of Walter Ong.))

Unfortunately, cherry-picking this passage in this debate over the future of technology in society precisely illustrates the point that Plato (via his mouthpiece Socrates) was trying to make. Allow me to quote a few other choice passages from the same dialogue:

the writers of the present day, at whose feet you have sat, craftily conceal the nature of the soul which they know quite well. Nor, until they adopt our method of reading and writing, can we admit that they write by rules of art (271c)

I am a lover of knowledge, and the men who dwell in the city are my teachers, and not the trees or the country. Though, I do indeed believe that you have found a spell with which to draw me out of the city into the country, like a hungry cow before whom a bough or a bunch of fruit is waved. For only hold up before me in like manner a book, and you may lead me all round Attica, and over the wide world. (230d)

Wait a minute…”our method”? Socrates has a method of writing? Socrates is willing to leave the men of the city for the spell of books? I thought the written word was bad, what gives?

The truth about the Phaedrus
The Phaedrus (along with its conceptual sibling the Symposium) is primarily a dialogue on the nature of love. In this conversation, the young Phaedrus carries with him a transcription of a speech by the sophist Lysias on the nature of love2. Phaedrus is so impressed by the arguments of Lysias that Socrates cannot help but be intrigued. Socrates asks Phaedrus to read the speech and a conversation on the nature of love follows. It is only in the very last part of the Phaedrus that the discussion on the merits of writing are found. As I will argue, the passage cited so often by the tech-savvy (i.e., 275a) is perfectly compatible with technological advancement and, indeed, that Plato’s argument in the Phaedrus should be embraced by everyone pursuing transliteracy.3

The passage at 274c, and the discussion on writing, is introduced the following way:

SOCRATES: Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable to God?
PHAEDRUS: No, indeed. Do you?
SOCRATES: I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?
PHAEDRUS: Your question needs no answer; but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard. (274b-c)

Note that the passage at 274c is only a retelling of a traditional tale, and in no means a position advocated by Socrates. Following the Forgetfulness quote, Socrates explains that one would be

a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain4; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters (275c-d)

Socrates’s position is nothing about forgetfulness, and everything about knowledge. And why would we be remiss in believing that writing is better than knowledge and recollection? Because,

writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect or defend themselves. (274d-e)

This, my friends, is Socrates’s real argument against the written word: typographical fixity should not be confused with dialectic. The written word, much like the painting, stands as a mute testament, incapable of explaining itself beyond the text presented. But, there is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Writing, Socrates explains, is a noble pastime, creating “memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age” (276d). However, the good of writing pales compared to the dialectician, who proceeds through exploratory argument, defending the truth when needed and acquiescing in the face of contrary evidence. To Socrates, the problem with writing is not that it “creates forgetfulness in the learners” but that people mistakenly hold the written word up as the only path to knowledge, when in reality, books are just information and the real knowledge comes from within the reader.

At various points, Socrates makes other enlightening observations. He rebukes Phaedrus’s emphasis on authorship over truth: “you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is” (275c). He argues in favor of information literacy: “neither poetry nor prose, spoken or written, is of any great value, if…they are only recited in order to be believed, and not with any view to criticism or instruction” (277e). He argues that oral instruction via dialectic is the superior means of teaching difficult concepts: “only in principles of justice and goodness and nobility taught and communicated orally for the sake of instruction and graven in the soul, which is the true way of writing, is there clearness and perfection and seriousness” (278e)
Indeed, the Socratic position is, very simply, that reading about a difficult concept is inferior to actually sitting down and discussing it with someone who is knowledgeable in the topic. Books are just one part of the equation in knowledge creation…we need collaboration, discussion, argument, and reason to complete the picture. Wait a minute…that sounds suspiciously like a job for new technologies!

The lesson of the Phaedrus
Rather than quote the Phaedrus out of context, perhaps we should appreciate Plato’s lesson about the relationship between communication and knowledge creation. The Socratic method of teaching through guided questioning is still a widely respected pedagogy and is a manifestation of the primacy of the dialectic in Plato’s epistemic worldview.5 Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with the printed word other than its inability to act as an interlocutor. This is where new media comes into play. From hyperlinks to blog comments to retweets, readers are now regaining the dialectic. We can ask questions of authors, we can point out fallacies, we can advise others, in short, we can do all of those things that Plato felt that books could not replace. In our newfound connectedness, we are regaining our oral tradition and the attendant dialectical possibilities. We must heed Plato’s real warning…not that we will become forgetful for embracing the new technology, but that we must not lose sight of the benefits of collaboration, communication, and dialogue.
So, stop using that quote from the Phaedrus and start spreading the good word about dialectical education.6

(1) Though I prefer the Hackforth translation, I’ll use Jowett’s, since it is readily available through Google Books.
(2) Note that the Wikipedia article was apparently written by someone who has not read the Phaedrus, either. The Wiki article claims that Phaedrus recites the speech, but 228d, et seq. makes it manifestly clear that Phaedrus will be reading from a printed text.
(3) As an aside, I have read Derrida’s “analysis” of the Phaedrus, and I am well aware of its influence on critical theory. Unfortunately, and to paraphrase Eysenck’s take on Freud, where Derrida was correct, he was unoriginal, and where he was original, he was just making shit up.
(4) Per Hackforth, read “reliable and permanent”
(5) I’m avoiding a discussion of Plato’s metaphysical and epistemological worldview, the Platonic world of forms, the doctrine of recollection, and the like, if only because (a) it would take me too far afield, (b) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy can explain it better, (c) you should have learned this stuff before you started quoting Plato.
(6) I realize that this post is both rather long, and also far too short to adequately cover the issue of Plato, dialectic, and new technology. Consider this a prolegomena to a possible article on the topic.

Read Full Post »

March 24, 2011 at the Cannery Ballroom in Nashville….Godspeed You! Black Emperor

I saw their last U.S. show all the way back in 2000 and it still stands as the best show I’ve ever seen. I’ve been waiting a long time for this.

Read Full Post »


Take a look at this video: Future of the Book | American Libraries Magazine

The only concerns I have with Nelson and Coupland are minor and nitpicky. Overall, I would love to have either. Alice is the one that irks me…
Regarding Alice, I’m worried that the technorati will use this method of writing as proof that the book, as we know it, is dead. Then again, these are the people who claimed that Avatar marked the end of film as we know it, yet conveniently forgot (1) that the vast majority of films are not big-budget, effects-driven sci-fi/fantasy films, and (2) the 1950s. This analogy is useful…
First, consider the vast majority of literature. Do we really need non-linear rewrites of Faulkner? Of course not, but that isn’t the real issue. The issue is whether non-linear, interactive writing is even applicable to most story-telling. Sure, some stories will benefit, but there is more than one way to tell a story, and most writing will remain as it is. Alice adds another method to the author’s repertoire, just as Avatar added a new method of directing, but neither constitute a paradigm shift. Another analogy could be made to the advent of the motion picture. Sure, film created an entirely new art form, but I don’t think photography is dead. Moreover, painting is alive and thriving. There are multiple ways to create visual art, and multiple ways to write, and none need take precedence.
Second, consider the originality of this style of writing. Non-linear narratives are fine and dandy but they are nothing new. Cortazar’s Rayuela comes to mind as a prime example, though more prosaic versions can be found elsewhere. Hell, there is very little difference between Alice-formatted texts and some video games. You want chapter 20? Turn the e-reader upside down. Want to find the magic boots? Type “get boots”? Want to read Molly Bloom’s soliloquy? Walk to within 100 yards of No. 7, Eccles Street, Dublin, Ireland. Want find out how to defeat the evil Ganondorf? Look for the silver arrows in the Death Mountain dungeon. For reward X, complete task Y. In sum, the materials available in Alice are no different than the text-based video games and non-linear stories that have been around for quite some time.
Just as 3-D has no application in the majority of the film world, Alice-style interactivity has no place in most literature: both are really cool niche formats, but niche formats all the same. Just as 3-D films have been around since the 1950s (and stagecraft, the ultimate 3-D, has been around for millennia), nonlinear storytelling has been around the block, too.

Read Full Post »

Ebooks and the Retailization of Research | Peer to Peer Review

not a bad essay.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »