Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (1)

Killer App
August 20, 2007

Reading "Hamlet.doc" by Matthew Kirschenbaum in The Chronicle of Higher Education has, sadly, opened my mind -- I say "sadly" because I'm ashamed to admit that I had never before thought of computers as machines that are designed to mimic other machines... in other words, there's no Universal Application.

Several friends and colleagues have heard my anecdote about being asked during a job interview "What's the killer app?" (Since the question was accompanied by non-stop finger-snapping, my unspoken answer included actual killing... ) After reading Kirschenbaum, I'm more convinced than ever that there's no Universal Killer App -- just lots of decisions to be made. "Hamlet.doc" focuses on how and what authors will save while they're working, and how and what libraries and archives will save what they receive from authors. Given the lamentations in usual circles about how authorial correspondence will never survive in the digital age. this article bears reading.

As Kirschenbaum points out with his point about the universality of computers, if humans can design a program to virtually "age" a document the more it is opened/revised/read, then humans can devise a way to save and organize authorial correspondence, revisions, and more in a fashion that makes the most sense to human eyes and minds. 

If I may make an analogy with that most perfect technology, the book: I was reading a magazine article yesterday about audiobooks just as a radio program broadcast an advertisement for a speed-reading course. I thought, good heavens, there's no such thing as speed-listening (thank dog, as Miss Snark would say). The book works the way it is supposed to, and despite more lamentations, someday that perfect technology may be perfectly replicated in a digital manner (don't lose consciousness; it hasn't happened yet... ).

Kirschenbaum writes:

"Famously, in 1986, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced a digital edition of the Domesday Book on laser disc. The format was rendered unusable in just a few years, while the original has survived in legible form since the 11th century. What often goes unacknowledged in that story, however, is that the original has survived not only because of the inherent physical properties of ink and parchment and paper — it has also survived because we evolved the social practices necessary to recognize its significance and keep it safe, in a climate-controlled, limited-access vault."

Those of us not actively engaged in lamentations need to be actively engaged in evolving social practices for the digital age. I love the smell of paper and ink as much as the next bibliophile, but let's face it: very few people are writing letters in longhand any more, let alone writing manuscripts that way. If we want to know as much as possible about the writing process, if we want to be sure that future generations will know as much as possible about it, too -- we need to consider electronic documents as carefully as we do parchment.

Posted by Bethanne Patrick on August 20, 2007 | Comments (1)