Marshall
McLuhan—what ya doin’?
----poem
from the TV comedy show
Laugh-In, 1967
I
recently read two articles that proclaimed the death of the novel. One of had
the title “The Novel Is
Dead—This Time It’s For Real.” Both writers mention the
Canadian communications philosopher Marshall McLuhan’s idea of the “Gutenberg
mind” as a primary reason for the coming demise of the novel. The Gutenberg
mind is a way of thinking that sees a text as a codex—a book, an entity of
print and paper—and sees the functioning of knowledge as, book to book—codex to
codex, printed entity to printed entity.
 |
| Marshall McLuhan |
Of
course, in our digital age this is not how knowledge works. Many texts are on
screen and notes immediately connect us to other on-screen texts. A few years
back, I encountered an online version of Milton’s Paradise Lost. It had links that explained obscure words,
references, and allusions (there are lots of these in Milton); it also had links
that took you to illustrations by Doré, Blake, and other artists. It rather
amazed me, who grew up with a Gutenberg mind, and who remembered constantly
glancing down to footnotes at the bottom of the page when I first read Milton’s
epic. I would say note/links is a vast improvement. But how does this kind of
digital technology spell the end of the novel?
One
of the authors, writing for The Guardian proclaims, “the advent of digital
media is not simply destructive of the codex, but of the Gutenberg mind
itself.” The book will go the way of the scroll and the sun-baked cuneiform tablet.
The destruction of the book by things shown on screen will also mean that readers
will not think of other books in cross-referencing literature, they will think
of other screens. The author is vague, and his article a bit desultory, but I get
the idea that he equates the death of the novel with the demise of the paper
book.
As
I said, the article is desultory—it jumps from point to point, and though it is
written in precise and entertaining prose, its thesis is not as clear as the
author’s prose style. It goes on to talk about changes in the publishing
industry, and makes the usual references to reading “serious novels.” It also
takes aim at the condition of the publishing industry and the idea that “solitary
reading” is necessary for in-depth understanding. In other words, it points to
a number of failings, weaknesses, and anomalies in publishing and writing but
does not successfully demonstrate (at least to me) how this will bring about
the demise of the novel.
I
say this because all the things that may be done with a codex—a book printed on
paper, bound, with a physical weight and presence—can be equally done with a
digital book. Some would object to this. I once heard a book seller, in the
early days of e-books, tell me that nothing could ever replace the “kinetic
pleasure” of reading a book. I thought this was a delightful way to put it. And
I know the pleasure of feeling the weight of a book in my hand, the pleasure of
turning pages . . . and yet I do those things on my Kindle Fire as well. It has
weight and I swipe the screen. There is a physical aspect to it. The material
may be a little harder than a well-worn paperback. And yet the leather cover
feels nice in my hands. I can’t write in my Kindle, but I can put notes in it.
But
that is not the question with which we are here dealing. Will the novel die due
to digital technology and due to the fact that digital texts will bring an end
to the Gutenberg mind?
After
considering, I have to say no. It is not necessary
to think in terms of printed entities, tomes (to use an archaic word) to have
intertextual reference. If I read (as I recently did) an obscure novel from the
1970s, Barbara Comyns The Juniper Tree
on my Kindle, does that mean I can’t cross-reference it with Stardust by Neil Gaiman, which I also
read in digital format? The books have little similarity and scant material one
might compare, but they could be compared. A Gutenberg mind isn’t necessary to
compare two on-screen texts or an on-screen text with a cloth and paper text.
I
think the article to which I refer, which I’ll provide a link to at the end of
my blog (a little irony here?) does not make clear the reason the author thinks
the novel will die. The advent of digital technology and e-books does not seem
a threat to novel-writing at all. What is done on paper can be done on the
screen. Young people are reading more—witness the number of copies (paper or
downloaded) for the Harry Potter
series or The Fault in Our Stars. And
digital technology demands that people read. Continuation of the popularity and
the profundity of the novel does need people with Gutenberg minds. It needs
people who read, and digital technology seems to have actually given that a
boost.
More
on the death of the novel to come.
Here's the article I reference in the blog. Read it and tell me what you think!
I
have two new books released!
Brand new: The Last Minstrel. Novel about a quest, evil and good goddesses, magic, and right and wrong. This story is family-friendly, G-Rated--or maybe PG-Rated due to some scary scenes.
ShadowCity is also newly released and available in digital and print format.
No comments:
Post a Comment