EL338: Kirschebaum (preface, chapters 1 & 2)

From the preface of "Mechanisms" on page xi:

"As one turns the pages, the drawings, some printed with uncured photocopy toner, rub and smear--a book that cannot help but to be remade in the act of reading."

First of all I'd like to say that William Gibson was naive of technological process when he intended Agrippa to be read only once. I understand the tactic, but did Gibson really think that this sort of disappearing hyperliterature would work? It's not even a matter of using technology to capture the words, for example copy and paste, but the reader could write the lines down as he read the fleeting lines. Perhaps he tried to convey that words only pass us by from day to day and how we let them affect us is our choice.

Anyway, I chose this line from the preface as my first agenda item because it struck me for the obvious reason of after reading it I asked myself, "can we remake books just by reading them?" In Gibson's case, the answer is yes because of the choices he made when going through the writing and publishing process of Agrippa. The smearing of the toner leaves marks on the book individual to the initial reader, and whomever picks up that copy of Agrippa some years down the line, they will form their own impressions not only from the original text but from the altered pictures of the previous reader.

Take away the uncured toner. Can we still remake a book by reading it? The only answer I have is undefinite, yes and no. Clearly the printed word is permanent, therefore readers have no way of altering those words simply by reading them; however, I thought about note-taking in the margins, but there the act of not just reading but writing is involved.

Chapter 1, Page 42:

"With electronic text we are always painting, each screen unreasonably washing away what was and replacing it with itself." -Michael Joyce, 1992

This line I feel marks the difference between print and electronic text. As aforementioned, the printed word is concrete and everlasting. Though electronic text is indeed published material, it isn't permanent as printed material because electronic text can be altered and quickly republished by millions of people (with computer access of course) at any given time of day. I found it interesting and true that Joyce likened electronic text to painting. When I think of painting, I think about the process of layering the colors and palcing my brush on just the right point on the canvas, because once the brush stroke passes over the easle, that paint cannot be removed. It can be blended and covered, and smeared with futile attempts to wipe it away. Electronic text is similar, the original form remains the same but others come along and add to it, take away from it, argue with it, etc. In this sense, Wikipedia could be likened to an enormous painting that's never finished.