It’s interesting to note the parallels between the printing
revolution and the modern technological revolution brought about by the computer
and the Internet. In both cases the distribution of information created an
increase in levels of consistency and entrenchment of standards. Although there
is clearly a difference between manual calculations and handwritten books, the
common denominator of manual labor and all its perils were inherent in both.
Just as the need for 10 copyists to serve one clerk in the 1450s created a
bottleneck in information distribution, extensive manual calculations done by
hand created a bottleneck in mathematical formulations. Errors in literary
duplication must’ve been the norm in much the way that errors in handmade calculations
were commonplace until the invention of the computer.
After the advent of printing, pneumonic devices and
memorable rhyme schemes also lost prevalence. After the widespread adoption of
the Internet, the necessity of books has greatly diminished in much the same
fashion. The trend, not surprisingly, is towards offloading information from
individual memory into a collective source that is easily retrievable in a
timely fashion. As the world becomes more complex in terms of its various
minutia and sub specialization, the strength of the individual seems to drift
towards effective referencing technique, and less on memorization.
Although there is a great deal of standardization that has
taken place due to our communication infrastructure, much of it is hardware-based.
In some ways the printing revolution was actually more substantial to the
fixation of the process by which information is transferred. The substantial
diminishment of individual interpretation occurred when typeface and authorship
authenticity concerns become commonplace. The printing revolution in many ways standardized
and ensconced the evolving variation within the transmission of stories, language
and other forms of communication, and the effect must have been substantial.
Matt, you have drawn out a fair number of threads from the reading, so let me just respond to a few. If you have ever had the chance to take a class in folklore or mythology (or classical rhetoric, for that matter), I think the cognitive and creative effects of print are especially apparent. You are certainly hinting at both the upsides and downsides of typographical standardization--on the one hand, minimization of error, reduction of labor, and improved time efficiency, but on the other, a potential stalling of what Eisenstein poetically calls "drift," whether of language, literature, or culture. It's now hard to imagine the days of sung or spoken storytelling, sometimes shared between speakers, characterized by improvisation and embellishment (check out, for instance, The Kalevala).
ReplyDelete