Nick Kocz's Ridiculous Words
  • SM Thayer
  • About
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Blog

Fetishizing the Printed Object

2/27/2011

 
I’m not a Luddite.  Sometime later this year, I’ll probably buy an e-reader.  I’ll do so with regret, because I really love printed text.  I love how I can totally lose all sense of the outside world when I’m reading a book—and I worry that I’ll never be able to achieve that sense of totally immersion when reading on an e-reader.

A couple of days ago, I caught a podcast of J. Robert Lennon interviewing Nicholson Baker.  Besides writing some of my favorite novels (Mezzanine, A Box of Matches, The Anthologist), Baker’s also writes thoughtfully on text preservation and the effects of technology on the written word.  Recall, for example, his 2009 New Yorker article on the Kindle. 

Baker seems to be more comfortable with e-readers nowadays, yet he still “connect[s] better with a printed book.”

“[T]here’s somehow a kind of connection that the text [provides]… There’s a more complete experience.  I remember it more.  I come away with more.  I don’t know if it’s just my own [experience], you know, just because I grew up in a paper-based world or something, but it’s still true for me.”

So it looks like Baker’s not getting total immersion from his e-reader.
Picture
I also worry about how an e-reader will change my relation to the books I own.  I doubt I’ll build the same kind of attachment to an electronic file as I might form with the ratty paperbacks I buy at thrift stores.

I’m not a rare book collector, but over the years I’ve picked up a few rare items.  Sixteen years ago, I came across a set of uncorrected galleys to Frank Conroy’s Stop-Time.  Conroy, as I wrote recently, was my first creative writing teacher, so the galleys to his masterpiece have personal meaning to me. 

The galleys were previously owned by Carter Burden, the one-time publisher of The Village Voice who had amassed one of the finest collection of twentieth-century US first editions.  To house the galleys, Burden had a special case made.

Picture
Another mentor, John McNally, introduced me to Stuart Dybek’s short stories.  After McNally had me read Dybek’s “Pet Milk,” I sought out all of Dybek’s work.  Eventually, I came across his 1993 chapbook, The Story of Mist (State Street Press Chapbooks).  The flash fiction collected within this volume is gorgeous. 

A few years after I bought the chapbook, Dybek came to Washington as part of the Pen Faulkner reading series.  ZZ Packer was also reading on the same bill.  Afterwards, lines formed so that audience members could meet the writers.  Dybek looked startled when he saw I wanted him to sign my copy of his chapbook.  Most people were asking him to sign copies of his then-current collection, I Sailed with Magellan—and here I was with some obscure chapbook that had been issued more than a decade prior.  Dybek seemed wary.  I sensed he feared I was some kind of fanatic—a mad fan who might attempt to chat him up for hours or even stalk him after the event.  It was awkward.  He had been friendly with almost everyone else in line, laughing and telling jokes.  With me, silence.

That same night, my wife and I talked with ZZ Packer for maybe five minutes.  She was charming, totally at ease with all the attention she was receiving for her collection, Drinking Coffee Elsewhere, which we had her sign for us.

Still, despite that experience, I'll always treasure my copy of The Story of Mist.

Picture
Donald Barthelme’s The Emerald (Sylvester & Orphanos) fills out my “rare book collection.”  After this story appeared in Esquire, a small Los Angeles publisher (Sylvester & Orphanos) published a handsome hardbound limited-edition.  Barthelme signed each of the 330 copies.  Somehow my wife acquired a copy, giving it to me as a birthday gift a few years back. 

This book is just so beautifully printed and bound.  What pictures I’ve snapped just cannot do it justice.
Picture
I guess to some degree I’m fetishizing the printed object, or at least already mournful that in the coming era of the e-book, there may be little room for these types of cherished mementos.  Five years from now, are printed galleys even going to exist?  And autographed e-books?  Can such things even exist?

However…yesterday…. my thoughts changed.

While future generations may never know what a limited edition chapbook might be, I saw something that made me confident that, in one form or another, the fetishizing of the printed object will continue.

Yesterday, I took my son to Kids Tech University, an awesome program developed by Virginia Tech’s Bioinformatics Institute to spur youngsters’ interest in STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).  In the morning, a scientist spoke about her research in Antarctic core drilling samples.  In the afternoon, the kids explored exhibits of various University-supported engineering projects. 

An exhibit on 3-D Printing, a manufacturing process that can reproduce any physical object, caught my attention.  I first read about 3-D Printing last year in a New York Times article.  Last month, I heard again about it through an NPR Talk of the Nation story, but seeing the exhibit astounded me.

As the Times wrote,

“A 3-D printer, which has nothing to do with paper printers, creates an object by stacking one layer of material — typically plastic or metal — on top of another, much the same way a pastry chef makes baklava with sheets of phyllo dough.”

Digital pictures are taken of an object, which are then computer-processed, building up a digital record of the object’s dimensionality.  The objects, which can be comprised of many components (including moving parts) are then “printed out” by spraying layer after layer of materials upon each other, allowing for each layer to dry before another is applied.  The objects exhibited this weekend were made from rubber and resins, but other materials, like copper and concrete, can be used.  To print out a fully-functioning adjustable wrench might take several hours but it’s amazing that objects which used to be hand-forged or assembled from molded parts can now be manufactured more effortlessly with much greater precision.

Although I didn’t ask, my guess is that the process needn’t begin with the photographing of an actual object.  Instead, one could probably design the objects through computer animated designs.

One of the exhibitors said that the images can even begin as CT scans, allowing surgeons the ability to print-out a patient’s body organs to get a better idea, say, where malignant tumors may reside.

As the technology progresses, I wonder if fully-bound books might be printed out this way.  Theoretically, 3-D Printing might actually expand book culture’s fetishizing of the printed object, allowing for the custom printing of newer, more fantastical books.

The other day, in my post about The Official Catalogue of the Library of Potential Literature, I quoted the Adam Robinson’s idea of a “wooden novel” composed of different “drawers.”  Today, such a thing might not be possible.  However, through 3-D Printing, it’s conceivable that such a book might yet be made, allowing readers new ways to immerse themselves in the printed word.  Meaning, the technology behind the printed book need not be dead.

Defining Deviancy Down & Aesthetic Tolerances

2/16/2011

 
Okay, so yesterday I wrote about Stéphane Hessel’s Indignez-Vous!, which concludes with the exhortation “TO CREATE IS TO RESIST; TO RESIST IS TO CREATE.”

Yes, I understand the skepticism.  As writers, we’ve been trained to mind-numbingly nod our heads at the feel-good platitudes about the worth of our work.  We instinctively clap upon hearing for the billionth time Shelley’s line about “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.”  And we even cheer for despicable Ezra Loomis Pound’s “Literature is news that stays news.”

But who are we kidding?  However, um, elegant Harry Reid and John Boehner may be, my hunch is that neither can write so much as a limerick.  If literature is “news,” how come it receives such scant attention?

In this case though, I believe Hessel is right if what is being created is not the same as everything else that’s already been created. 

I’m not one of those people who believe literature has to be proscriptive or even directly address sociopolitical issues.  But I think it ought to attempt to pose questions and scenarios that haven’t been posed before.  Innovative & imaginative forms can be the best means to voice our unease or indignation.  But you know this.  Just as contemporary installation art is capable of saying different things than classical marble sculpture, innovative literature can provoke different responses than traditional realism.

So why is innovative literature so disparaged in the marketplace?  Probably because there’s not enough of it.

I’ve been thinking about “Defining Deviancy Down,” the Daniel Patrick Moynihan essay first published in 1993.  Moynihan, an aide to four presidents and a four-term New York senator, was something of an intellectual in his day.  Putting aside his troubling use of “deviancy,” the essay is illuminating. 

Moynihan posited that society’s tolerance for criminal acts is relative.  In times of high crime, lesser criminal acts will be tolerated or even be deemed to be “normal.”  If the land was overrun by serial killers, we’d suddenly become a lot less fussy about prosecuting petty larceny so that we could concentrate our attentions on those serial killers.

In this circumstance, Moynihan writes, “society will choose not to notice behavior that would be otherwise controlled, or disapproved, or even punished.”

In other words, it’s the behavioral outliers that dictate our societal norms.

I wonder if the same idea could help explain society’s tolerance for artistic innovation and prevailing aesthetics.  Could aesthetics be dictated by the extremes?

Permit me the following illustration:
Picture
The first line represents a relatively constricted aesthetic marketplace.  The yellow oval represents the “sweet spot” of society’s tastes—books that fall within this mainstream range can be expected to have some currency; they may even sell.  The “1” dot, which might be marginally “imaginative,” represents about as far as mainstream tastes may go.

In that first line, the “3” dot represents the extreme of available “imponderably imaginative” works.  Because it lays at the extreme, my guess is that it will pass totally unnoticed by mainstream culture. 

Now imagine the second line.  Here, the bounds of imaginative literature are pushed even further.  While there may be more net imaginative works (dots 6-10) that are banished or ghettoized outside of the mainstream, their mere existence increases society’s tolerance for imaginative literature.  Works that otherwise would have been outside the mainstream (dots 2 & 3) are now within the mainstream—hugging the most conservative border of that mainstream.

To use a Gladwellian term, this is how imaginative literature can reach its “tipping point.”

Will it work overnight?  No.  But can it work?  Maybe.

Over 200,000 copies of Donald Barthelme’s SNOW WHITE were in print within its first year of publication.  Barthelme’s novel is an incredibly innovative work and, at times, incredibly challenging.  If it were published today, it would probably pass unnoticed.  So why was it such a success? 

My guess is that back then, publishers must also have been putting out a lot of books that were even more innovative than Barthelme’s—so many so that SNOW WHITE wasn’t seen as being extreme (or, to borrow Moynihan’s term, “deviant”) but “normal.”

[Political aside: I’ve always wondered why conservatives are so eager to nominate candidates for major offices who, to my tastes, seem so “extreme.” 

Now I think I know: people like Sarah Palin are necessary because they allow the John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of their ilk to appear positively “normal.”  They’ve broadened the political marketplace.  Politicians who twenty years ago would have been seen as too conservative to be viable candidates have been mainstreamed.]

Whose Side Are You On?-- Oates vs. Barthelme

2/9/2011

 
All across America in 1972, Richard Nixon campaigned for re-election.  While he was doing so, Joyce Carol Oates, that darling of the rear-guard, published what I believe is the nastiest piece of criticism ever to appear in The New York Times.

How nasty?

She goes nativist, declaring American post-modernists of her generation as being under the foreign yoke.  They're un-Americans. How dare they portray America in a less-than-positive light? And look carefully at what she says about Nabokov being "evil.”

Chief among her gallery of rogues was an American writer of “arguable genius.”  Though unnamed, she identifies him as one who famously declared, “Fragments are the only form I trust.”

That writer, of course, was Donald Barthelme.  (“Fragments are the only form I trust” was a dictate repeated several times in his celebrated short story, “See the Moon?”)

What Oates has against these writers is their intention is to make readers think, which from her perspective places them in the opposite camp from writers whose chief aim might be to make readers feel or in some way ameliorate their pain and suffering and confusion.

It’s a false dichotomy, but look at her rhetoric.  She exhorts,

“If you refuse to make choices [between these two camps], someone else will make them for you.”

A tad paranoiac, no?  Something out of, say, the Patrick Buchanan or Karl Rove school of literary criticism?

In Oates’s essay, she’d have Barthelme and his ilk “line up… and file through a doorway marked THIS WAY OUT.”  One suspects that what she has in mind for them is an execution squad.  Why else would she begin the essay meditating in a cemetery about the better days that are to come when real Americans like her can reclaim "vandalized lands."

Really. It's Nixonian. She's but one step removed from calling for a pogrom against degenerate art.

It’s unclear what effect this essay had on Barthelme, who was known to suffer periods of despair.  It’s one thing to suffer a bad review, but quite another thing to be singled-out as a national disgrace.

“Donald could put a wry twist on negative criticism of his work better than many writers. I am certain he would not have thought highly of Joyce Carol Oates’ work so it probably irked him less than another writer saying it,” Lynn Nesbit, his longtime agent, told me via email.

Still, Oates’ essay must have stung.  He purposely inserted a question into interview conducted by Jerome Klinkowitz to make light of her charges.  (That interview is among the most penetrating that Barthelme ever gave and was recently reprinted in the Kim Herzinger-edited Barthelme anthology, Not Knowing)

Last year, Oates wrote a bit more about her encounters with Barthelme.  Five years after her New York Times piece appeared, they met for lunch.  Graciously, she concedes that Barthelme’s investment in fragmentary forms “in retrospect sounds reasonable enough.”  She congratulates him on the good reviews earned by his then current collection, Amateurs.  Is it a bestseller, she asks.

Barthelme tells her that none of his books were best-sellers.

Oates is shocked—bestseller-hood apparently being in her eyes a mark of true distinction; by this point in her career, she had been hooded many times herself.

The encounter becomes prickly.  She describes Barthelme as being a passive-aggressive “bully”—which is odd because other accounts I’ve read of Barthelme describe him as being amazingly cheerful and generous towards fellow writers.  So I guess it’s fair to infer that Oates’s essay still stung, five years after the fact.

[An aside: Oates mentions that Barthelme responded to her essay in Newsweek article.  I can’t locate it.  It doesn’t pop up in either the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature listings or in the 1977 Klinkowitz/Pieratt/Davis-compiled Barthelme Bibliography.  Nor is it apparently referenced in the Daugherty autobiography.  Might Oates’s memory be wrong— or am I just missing it?  If anyone can offer a citation, I’d be grateful!]

    Categories

    All
    Adam Johnson
    Alan Cheuse
    Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    Alexi Zentner
    Amber Sparks
    Amy Rowland
    Andrew Wylie
    Andy Warhol
    Anna Snoekstra
    Ann Patchett
    Arsène Wenger
    Aubrey Hirsch
    B.A. Paris
    Barack Obama
    Ben Fountain
    Ben Marcus
    BEST DAY EVER
    Bob Dylan
    Book Reviews
    Bryan Furuness
    Cathy Day
    Children Of Paradise
    Chimamanda Adichie
    Christine Butterworth-McDermott
    Christopher Brown
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    Dave Housley
    David Bowie
    David Foster Wallace
    David Lynn
    Donald Barthelme
    Donald Trump
    Don't You Cry
    Ed Falco
    E.M.Forster
    Emma Chapman
    Emmanuel Adebayor
    Failed State
    Flannery O'Connor
    Flash Fiction
    Frank Conroy
    Fred D'Aguiar
    F. Scott Fitzgerald
    Gabriel Blackwell
    George Harrison
    George Saunders
    Gillian Flynn
    Girija Tropp
    Harper Lee
    Heart
    Hillary Clinton
    Hotel Roanoke
    I Will Never Leave You
    Jacob Appel
    James Lasdun
    James Tadd Adcox
    Jane Fonda
    Jeff Ell
    Jenniey Tallman
    John Cusack
    John Lennon
    John Updike
    Joyce Carol Oates
    J. Robert Lennon
    Julie Lawson Timmer
    Kaira Rouda
    Kate Atkinson
    Keith Banner
    Kenyon Review
    Kim Jong Il
    Kyle Minor
    Lance Olsen
    Len Kuntz
    Lenny Dykstra
    Leslie Pietrzyk
    Lily Hoang
    Lisa Jewell
    Lou Reed
    Luke Geddes
    Mary Kubica
    Melissa Febos
    Milan Kundera
    Molly Gaudry
    Nicholson Baker
    Notes For My Biographer
    Pablo Picasso
    Paula Hawkins
    Paul Maliszewski
    Paul Mccartney
    Philip Roth
    REAL: Regarding Arts & Letters
    Regency Room
    Richard Peabody
    Rick Moody
    Robert Kloss
    Robert Smartwood
    Roxane Gay
    Shirley Hazzard
    S.J. Watson
    S.M. Thayer
    SM Thayer
    Stéphane Hessel
    Stuart Dybek
    Submission Fees
    Sven Birkerts
    Tadeusz Borowski
    The Beatles
    The Fall Guy
    The Girls In The Garden
    The Good Girl
    The Official Catalog Of The Library Of Potential Literature
    Thomas Mallon
    Tim O'Brien
    Tony Earley
    Umberto Eco
    Virginia Woolf
    Wells Tower
    Willem De Kooning
    Working Class Hero

    Archives

    December 2024
    January 2021
    August 2018
    January 2018
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    September 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011

    RSS Feed