Vision Session I: Bob Stein, Director of the Institute for the Future of the Book. “The Evolution of Reading and Writing in the Networked Era.”
This was an interesting session in which I only jotted down 2 pages of random and skimpy notes.
In his prologue, he spoke about reading Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers which claims that Copernicus’ book was one of the most important books that nobody read at the time. Years later Owen Gingerich wrote The Book That Nobody Read. Gingerich spent around 30 years looking at every extent 1st and 2nd edition of Copernicus and found that all of them had dense marginalia; conversations, in fact.
Books as “frozen objects”, disconnected from each other.
Standard view of reading and writing is individualistic.
Books are random-access devices.
Today we face a serious issue with user-driven media being taken over by producer-driven media. But perhaps if we put a microprocessor into the mix then we can shift more producer-driven media back to user-driven media. [I can somewhat see the point, but I honestly don't think that providing a pause, rewind, start over, etc. control makes something truly user-driven. He's got a point, but he's focusing on "vision" and not specifying the limits of the shift.]
“Librarians make me rise to the occasion. They are the smartest audiences I ever get to talk to.” [Might as well show a picture of a fluffy cat, Bob, or tell us one of those wonderful anecdotes about how everything you know you owe to the public library.]
The Future of the Book, Geoffrey Nunberg, ed., afterword by Umberto Eco. They were wrong about the book. It’s not about audiovisual, it is all about the network.
Some of the things The Institute for the Future of the Book has done/is doing:
Without Gods: Toward a History of Disbelief
Gamer Theory – McKenzie Wark
Gratuitous Vannevar Bush reference. I forced myself to re-read “As We May Think” yesterday and at least it supports his use, mostly, if one reads real generously. Still. Learn a little recently produced history, please.
He left us with 3 questions?
If works are always in process, what does that imply for notions of versions and authority?
Authoritative editions may disappear.
Given the vast amount of information/conversation available on just one subject, should it even be a goal to enable a single individual to master it? [Hear, hear!]
Enable teams … mechanisms are currently missing for this.
What will it mean to be “human” in the age of the digital network?
Our views are wrapped up in the Enlightenment view.
He says various conversations are leading to the view that a new Creative Commons license is needed regarding the right to build marginalia around a work. [I sure wish he would have said more on this. It could be fleshed out a couple of ways and I don't know which one(s) is correct.]
Forethought in technology. Humanists need to be involved. Do not leave the future of technology to the geeks.
He is profoundly nervous about the work the Institute is doing.
