New Media Theory

I don’t know how to put a title on my posts. Is this how I do it?




I think the three thursday readings dovetail really well with Gitelman’s discussion of “failed technologies.” Gitelman refutes technological determinism by describing the way society chooses some technologies over others; Bush describes a host of potential technologies that created new theoretical space for technological development. What’s interesting about Bush’s described technologies is that they aren’t inventions or even likely inventions; Bush’s ideas are more like identification of needs already existing in society: minimum bulk, maximum functionality; high degree of mechanized organization. A mechanical desk full of books and papers isn’t that much different from a personal secretary (interestingly, Nelson points out that his ELF would cost about the same as a secretary but could serve more people), but Bush recognizes that the combination of wartime science and industrialization made the time ripe for new ways of organizing information. Technology changes the way society functions and individuals think, yes; but individuals and society are calling for the change, even before the need (or system of needs) is identified and filled.




In addition to the organizational strategies that actually got put to use in computing, the Nelson reading sketches some other strategies that could potentially fill the need he’s working on (though he considers them inferior). In doing so, he points out some of the millions of directions technology could take–none (or few, I don’t really know) of these are failed technologies; Nelson views them as potential failed technologies inferior to his potential successful technology; they are all ideas that existed and didn’t take (exactly like the electric pen except that they never existed). There are thousands of similar potential failed or successful technologies that have never been thought about, and thousands of successful technologies that never should have (dancing baby, for example). Unlike Professor Fitzpatrick lamenting the failed but superior Beta tape, Nelson firmly believes that the technology itself has the strongest hand in determining its own success–but maybe the Sony scientists did too, before marketing stuck their fat noses in.




Borges, that wild and crazy guy, thinks about the forking paths of technology only in that they are a small part of the forking paths of life, where reality is determined not only by choices and coincidences in linear time (as in the fabulous _Sliding_Doors_) but by the whole host of possibilities that exist in the universe, which are independent and converging and infinite and completely non-linear. Time, like existence, is an illusion of point-of-view, I guess. Yet ultimately Borges does not refute determinism: does Dr. Tsun kill Albert because this murder was a pre-set future, despite Albert’s hospitality, generosity, friendship, wisdom, genius, etc.? Does he kill because he decided that transmitting his message was more important that preserving his ancestor’s knowledge? Does he kill because he decided that his future was pre-set, though it was entirely in his power to change it? Does the revelation of his ancestor’s labrinth have any impact on the murder? Was the labrinth a failed technology because all understanding of it died? I don’t know.




I think the excerpt from Gulliver’s Travels also dealt with this question a bit too, in the description of the many technologies of the Academy. On one hand, Swift is ridiculing the notion that the scientific worldview has displaced the agrarian, tribal/communal worldview to such an extent that technology and science become impractical. On another, the ridiculous technologies he describes–cucumber sunshine, for example–are not entirely unlike Bush’s memex, in that they are ideas that never materialized; or Edison’s electric pen, in that they were passed over for a more efficient means to the same end.

Gulliver’s Travels got me thinking about what constitutes “children’s literature” and how this concept has changed throughout time. I’d always thought this book was meant for kids, but when I finally read part of it, I started to doubt my assumption. The small typeface, the lack of illustrations, the political symbolism, and the sheer length of the story made it seem… well… adult. But some of my classmates assured me that Gulliver’s Travels is indeed a children’s book, despite all those elements that led me to believe otherwise.




It would be interesting to know what age group this book was originally intended for… Maybe it’s one of those texts designed to appeal to both kids and adults (modern examples of this include movies like Shrek, The Emperor’s New Groove, and Monsters, Inc.). But it seems to me that our concept of children’s literature has changed significantly since the 1700s…and not really for the better. The children’s books I see these days are loaded with pictures, huge print, and simple storylines. We’re talking Strawberry Shortcake and Dora the Explorer here…nothing even remotely resembling Gulliver’s Travels in length, form, or sophistication of subject matter.




I realize that there are several ways to look at this.

1) Our concept of kiddie lit has gone WAY downhill.

2) Our concept of kiddie lit has merely evolved; today’s children’s books are easier for kids to understand, they help kids learn to read (the big text, the visuals, etc).

3) Kiddie lit just isn’t as important anymore, since there are so many other forms of media with which we can educate our children…TV! The Internet! LeapFrog! Baby Einstein! (exclamation points used here to show cynicism, not excitement…)




I think that publishers would probably argue in favor of reason #2 but that #1 and #3 are what’s actually happened.