While reading the "Cult of the Amateur" by Andrew Keen over the weekend I came across a passage that made me wonder a little bit about Keen's argument against the "Internet 2.0". It starts out with him talking about Kevin Kelly and how "he wants to rewrite the very definition of the book". It is going to turn books into "a single universal free hypertext". After describing this he says:
To anyone with the most elemental appreciation for the sanctitiy of the book and respect for the toils of the authorm the implications of what Kelly suggests are, well, obscene. Is Crime and Punishment still Crime and Punishment if you remove the scene where Raskolnikov murders the pawnbroker?"
He goes on and gives a few more examples and then says that books shouldn't be taken apart and put back together like "Legos". Keen Is worried that books will be deconstructed and put back together with ideas of others with the use of Kevin Kelly's idea of digital books and therefore destroy the Original work.
I think that Keens fear is based on assumptions though. His theory that everyone on the internet will demolish the institution of books is rather farfetch'd. The day that the bloggers choose to do away with the thoughts of the great thinkers and writers of the past is the day when society really does relapse in the evolutionary process. I think that this is what is at the base of Keens fear. But civilization is moving forward. Books becoming digital is nothing but progression. Keens assumption that Kelly's idea will lead to the death of a culture makes me wonder why the internet scholars would honestly choose to do away with the fundamentals because this I figure would be the knife in to the heart of culture. Then i think some more and it hits me that this is not the case.
The original works will always be there. The removal of the great works can only be blamed to natural disasters and the rulings of tyrants. Society doesn't have to worry about natural disasters doing away with the works really because of technology and if a tyrant does around and decides to remove the great works, then its going to be war. (and Keen better be at the front lines) At the end of the day no one should worry about losing the works that are in circulation right now.
And as for the death of culture via Kelly's idea, this can be avoided by means of responsibility. We have to honor the originals and do our best to not lose their ideas. It should be made clear what they thought and then add what others think. This will keep the wheels of progression turning. A person has to keep an open mind in order to learn. To shut out ideas is what will lead to a stop in mans evolution (just to keep up with keens idea of monkeys behind computers)
I think of myself for example. I am not a master in writing, but I do have a firm interest in the art and this interest drives me to look into the techniques. So the searches for writing techiniques and definitions of Kairos and other terms involving prose are neccessary for me to come to an understanding. The same goes if I am trying to understand the thoughts of the great authors and thinkers. I have to search for them and their ideas. I read their original works, and then I find Kevin Kellys digital books and find some more ideas. I then piece together both and come to an understanding. I can also look for a professional and get their ideas. This is my responsibility.
In the end, shutting out the thoughts of individuals is what will turn us into monkeys. The search for knowledge should be free. Putting barriers on the minds of others will only lead us back to the dark ages. The computer and the internet light up the faces of the bloggers and enlighten their minds as well.
I agree with you. Fear is usually based on assumption. No matter how many amature publish on the internet we will always have all of the great thinkers and authors we learn about in school. Just because anyone can publish doesn't mean we have to read it. It also doesn't mean that authors of actual talent will be underminded.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you say original works can only be destroyed by natural disasters and tyrants, because if the original work were on the internet it would be able to avoid both of those problems. So the internet is actually a way of preserving works that originally could be destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with independentindividual in that the internet can actually be used to preserve some of the great literary works or any type of work for that matter. It allows people from around the world to share their experiences in different countries and share images from those countries. On the issue of the internet creating “monkeys”, I believe the concept of so called “experts” depends heavily on each individual’s opinion. There are many people that are so called “experts” sometimes have no better idea of what they are talking about than some guy sitting on his couch. I’ll admit, this does partially depend on the subject matter. For instance, I’m not exactly going to trust the guy on the couch while looking up something in regards to a medical issue but it is my responsibility to make sure I only go to sites where I know I am dealing with experts. Such professional sites as WebMD are becoming more and more popular as the internet becomes more popular. It all boils down to the responsibility of the internet user in ensuring they are seeking responsible opinions and not using sites such as Wikipedia for important matters.
ReplyDeleteI cherish the ability to open the pages of book and read. The thought of everything book going electronic is concerning, because someone else will have control of the media.
ReplyDeleteThere is a basic psychological validation to have something physical. A book in printed form feels more "real" to the unconcious I think, and we value it more, or many of us do. And who in their right mind other than immature egoists would think that they "improve" a creative, written piece of work by changing it all around? I would never presume to rewrite any of my favorite books and call it "better." Most people don't even do this to songs. We change a pop song into a dance song by some pretty specific changes, and call it "different" not "Better", unless it is someone who just likes music with a dance beat subjectively better. And credit still goes to the original creator. I don't think that books and original authorship will ever be done away with, except in the small communities of Narcissists who believe that they are the center of creative talent.
ReplyDelete