Emancipate the analogue!

by Alex F. Vance on 31. Dec, 2005 in Articles, Blog

So, I was recording Chapter 4 of the audiobook of kyellgold’s novel ‘Volle’ (why yes, I am a sensationally multi-​​talented Renaissance Wuff, how nice of you to say so) and I was shuffling some of the pages of the script I’d prepared. Kyell had sent me the text version of the novel and after a good bit of experiemntation I’d settled on the optimal reading format — 13-​​points sans-​​serif font (Trebuchet, cute and legible, thick and spacious), left-​​justified, indented paragraphs, 1.1 line distance, 8-​​points paragraph distance, landscape format A4 for maximum line length, thus minimizing problems arising from mistaken predictions about the grammatical structure of a sentence — when two of the pages slipped out of the pile and I had to hunt through the pile to slip the numbered pages in their proper spot.
I seem to be struck by things quite a bit lately; first music and now this. I was struck by how marvelous the idea is that mere paper suddenly becomes valuable simply by dint of what’s printed on it. Specifically, without those particular sheets of paper, I wouldn’t be able to narrate those sections of the story.
I know it seems trite and obvious, but run with it. I’ve often professed jealousy at the compactness of visual art. When I joined jotun_​neko to an evening class at his art school I saw people sharing drawings from teir portfolios and I felt a pang of envy at the ease with which artists can share their work. “Here, take this piece of paper and look at it, tell me what you think.” While proper appraisal of a complicated work of art can take some time, you can form an opinion of most ordinary works of art in a single glance. You like the colours or you don’t, the style appeals to you or it doesn’t, and the obvious faults leap into view.
Not so for writers. Poets, musicians, actors, even filmmakers practice crafts whose products take very little time to consume and appraise, at least a first glance. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, in its splendid Extended Edition Glory may be a twelve-​​hour marathon, but there are few regular readers out there that could read the latest Harry Potter cover to cover in that time — despite the fact that that bitch Rowling used double line spacing to make the book seem thicker! For God’s sake, ‘Volle’ is longer than that, and so’s Maranatha and it isn’t even finished yet!

The point is, while making a film surely taes more time and more money and a lot more calories than writing a book (not counting research, such as for travel books), the product is more compact, taking less time to consume. Artists can come together for a night and show each other their work and talk about it, and everyone can show a few pieces and get a few opinions. Long-​​form writers can’t do that. Reading a longer story takes hours, days, weeks, depending on how you pace yourself and the material takes time to settle.
This is sad, but also fantastic. While I’m a big geek and as an itinerant New Mediast deeply enamoured with all things digitial (I want one of these, if not to own it, then at least for the thing to exist) I’m also a big promoter of the analogue. The voice versus the iPod, as in the earlier post.
Now, take books. Like this fat pile of paper in my lap, which I’m slowly chewing through, intoning into my (digital) microphone, reading Kyell’s excellent story for mass consumption. it’ll be somewhere between ten and fifteen hours of audio material and will take easily three times as long to actually record and put together, but look, I can hold it in my hand. Sure, you may say that millions of books fit on a DVD, but before you can read them you need A) a computer, B) a DVD drive, C) a screen and D) a nationwide electricity network powered by dams, windmills, nuclear and fossil fuel reactors — whereas to read the beautiful story I now hold in my grubby little paws, you need only your eyes and your education.
Sure, you may argue, the time it took you to learn to read (and in some of your cases, to also learn English aside from your native tongue) could be translated monetarily into a fortune far greater than the cost of a computer (though not perhaps that of the electricity network) but honestly, what were you going to do with those years anyway? Besides, you’ve had use of those skills so often since then that the cost has been amortized to nearly nothing.

Suddenly it’s not such a pity that it takes so long to read a story or a book; it’s quite special. No other medium can contain such a huge amount of information or entertainment in such a small object, which takes so very little to be consumed. As mentioned, eyes and knowledge of the written form of the book’s language are sufficient. It’s almost magical. The Lord of the Rings films may be spectacular, but the books can carry you away wherever you may read them. Beach, bus stop, hospital…

I know I sound lik the Magic Of Reading dude from that Chickenf*cker episode of South Park, but go with it.

Tags: , , ,

  • I read the latest harry potter in about 5 hours, the fifth Harry Potter in about 7.5, and certain Tom Clancy novels (the old and really thick ones) in 11-14 hours in a single day. I'm a voracious reader.


    I think there are exceptions to the time constraints re: visual vs. long form creations. As an art historian I've spent many many hours looking at and analyzing single examples of visual art. At the same time, the blurbs on the backs of books gives the opportunity for that immediate gut reaction of "I like it" or "What a waste of a perfectly good tree." Those first impressions may be misleading, but that can be true of visual art, too. There are a lot of differences between the visual and long-form written art, but while you cam make superficial generalizations about time, I think it's doesn't really do justice to those issues.

  • I'm going to stick to my guns a bit here. Whether or not you have absorbed all that a work of visual art has to offer is certainly debateable, and I've watched historians of your fascinating ilk poring at length over gigantic projections of tapestries on slides -- but if you don't absorb all there is to partake of, you have in face seen all of it. Every photon's hit your retina. While in a movie, certainly, you may have blinked and missed two frames (which, if ill-timed, can make decoding Memento far trickier than it ought to be, and spoil a lot of the psychedelic humour in Fight Club), but you've seen almost al of it and music, well, you can't ignore that unless you fall asleep. But you can't claim to have 'read' a book unless you've actually decoded every letter. You don't have to get it, or like it, but you do have to read all of it before you can even have a first-hand impression of it.

    A blurb on the back is a second-hand impression, just like the blurb on the back of a DVD, a review of a piece of music or a description of a piece of art.


    On a wholly unrelated subject, have we met or engaged each other in any fashion? You're interesting.

  • Up to now it's been a rather one sided engagement, as I've read your writing, but not had any contact with you. I only recently discovered FurRag and your Livejournal (Through Kyell's livejournal) It is interesting how these communities seem to spring up with the same people in them. You, Kyell, Teiran, and KM Hirosaki are (some of) my favorite writers, but I never knew that you all talked/participated in online community stuff, plus people like Graveyard Greg and Red Swampwulf.

  • Oh, I could start a lecture on Network Theory... Hubs and circuits and social filtering, oh my! I've good bonds with Kyell, Hirosaki-san and Red, to be sure, though I've known Red since a loooong time before I started writing.


    Connections, connections!

  • The ease of relaxing and opening a book is indeed far preferable to heading to the internet and staring at the harsh brightness of a computer screen. I would never have read the stories included in FANG issues H05 and 1GF if I hadn't had it in my paws in paperback form.


    I devour literature at an average rate of 25,000 words per hour, myself. If the fiction is designed for audiences younger than myself, I usually read it all the faster. Sometimes it's almost as if I'm questing for a volume that I would relish taking my casual time with (or simply cannot absorb at an accelerated rate). Or, perhaps, I simply read fast because I want to see the plot resolved.

  • In many cases I'll read fast to get to the resolution of the plot, but then go back and read it slower and more carefully to catch things I missed. If you want some things to read that are simply impossible to absorb quickly may I suggest some philosophy by Heidegger, Michel Foucault, or Jaques Derrida. I'm sure those would slow you down just a bit ;)

  • Philosophy is teh ewww, but a friend did recommend "Cryptonomicon" By Neal Stephenson to me recently. Usually I only have trouble at my pace if an author introduces a whole slew of new characters all at once, like in Tolkien's Silmarillon. Otherwise, I just seem to be...hungry, even ravenous for new material.

  • Side note: it took me just over six hours to read the latest HP :)


    And you are a sensationally multi-talented Renaissance Wuff, aren't you?

  • Six hours? You're a witch! A witch! You must be stoned!


    Although, hanging out with Kimba and Kensaro as you occasionally do, I suspect that you may be way ahead of me. And the speed's likely a cheetah thing -- much like your LJ-sniping. Two minutes! Woo :)

  • As a cheetah, I feel it is my responsibility to keep up the reputation of my species; plenty of lounging around in the sun, intersperced with periods of running very fast. There are, of course, things that one should take one's time over.


    As for the HP thing, that was more a self-preservation thing — I didn't want someone giving away the ending before I'd read it!

  • The Stream -- an unstoppable flow of information... so unstoppable that it can't even be delayed without dramatic action. Discussions on the ending of the new HP start within minutes of its becoming available, and you know you've missed the latest South Park when five people separately remark that you rack a-disciprine :)

  • Indeed, in this case, queueing at midnight to buy it as soon as it was physically possible, then locking myself in my room was the only way to remain pure; the wonderful thing about books is that you can go sprawl on your bed, or lounge around on the floor, and completely lose yourself in the pages, something that's just not possible with screen-based media.


    Whenever I'm reading research papers, despite the majority of them being provided in pdf format, I still can't assimilate them unless they're printed out and I can curl up under my desk to read them, make notes in the margins, get coffee-stains on it, underline or annotate things, feel the article and create mental associations with the way the thing looks.


    There's a lot more to the experience of reading than just the words, after all!

  • Yesyes! There's something about research papers and coffee.¹ It's like they need a libation before they can release their nummy noëtic goodness, kinda like seeds that can't germinate until they've fermented their way through an elephant.


    ¹ Or chamomile tea, in my case. But near enough.

  • I love the rituals people have with their reading :)

  • You are so not wrong! That's exactly the reason why I started FANG. And I love your icon!


    "Mmmmmmmm.." :)

  • Books are wonderful. I suspect this userpic's more appropriate for a bibliophile, however. And if you manage to get the reference, you get a nuzzle next time I see you :)

  • I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue. I *have*, however, discovered the joy of userpics. Can I have that nuzzle anyway? :)

  • It's the view from the South Portico across the Great Court at the British Muesum towards the Reading Room.


    Very pretty building, lots and lots of books, nice atmosphere. Next time you're in London, it's worth dropping in for a sniff around the place :)


    PS: userpics are great! So far, I have just under eighty.

    PPS: well, seeing as it's you... *nuzzle!*

  • Looks lovely! London's a city I haven't seen nearly enough of in my life :)

blog comments powered by Disqus