Thomas Pettitt on the Gutenberg Parenthesis
0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
There are things going on that are related changes.
The big revolution with Gutenberg
changed, or was related to big changes in other aspects --
— for example, the way we look at the world
and the way we categorize things in the world.
And if the same thing is happening now,
and if we are reversing that revolution in these things as well,
then this idea can predict the future.
Because we are going forward to the past.
And with regard to things like truth,
or the things like the reliability of what you hear in the media,
then I think, well, in a way we’re in for a bad time.
Because there was a hierarchy.
In the parenthesis,
people like to categorize
— and that includes the things they read.
So the idea clearly was that in books,
you have the truth.
Because it was solid, it looked straight,
it looked like someone very clever
or someone very intelligent had made this thing,
this artifact.
Words, printed words —
in nice, straight columns, beautifully bound volumes —
you could rely on them.
That was the idea.
And then paperback books weren’t quite as reliable,
and newspapers and newssheets were even less reliable.
And rumors you heard in the street
were the least reliable of all.
You knew where you were —
or you thought you knew where you were.
Because the truth was that those bound books
were probably no more truthful
than the rumors you heard on the street,
quite likely.
I often tell my students
that they should start their literature work,
their work here, by tearing a book to pieces:
Take a book, take some second-hand book,
that looks impressive — and just rip it to pieces.
And you can see that it’s just made,
it’s just glued, it’s just stitched.
And it’s not invulnerable.
It’s just that someone’s made it.
It doesn’t have to be true because it looks good.
And that’s what’s happening now.
What’s happening now is there’s a breakdown in the categories.
Yes. Informal messaging is starting to look like books.
And books are being made more and more quickly.
Some books seem to be like they are like bound photocopies.
You can make a book — you can do desktop publishing.
We can no longer assume that what’s in —
we’re not distinguishing so much:
‘if it’s in print, it’s right,’
‘if it’s in writing, it’s less right,’
and ‘if it’s in speech, it’s less reliable.’
We don’t know where we are.
And I suppose the press, and journalism,
and newspapers, will have to find their way.
They will have to find some way
of distinguishing themselves in this —
it’s now a world of overlapping forms of communication.
People will no longer assume that if it’s in a newspaper, it’s right.
Newspapers are spreading urban legends,
some of the time.
Or at least now we know that they pass on urban legends.
And the formal press will need somehow
to find a new place in this chaos of communication
where you can’t decide the level,
the status, the value of the message
by the form of the message.
Print is no longer a guarantee of truth.
And speech no longer undermines truth.
And so newspapers, or the press,
will need to find some other signals —
it’s got to find a way through this.
And it might do well
to take a look at rumors and,
sort of, more primitive forms of the press
in the 16th century and the 15th century.
How did people themselves — when there were no books,
how did people sort out the truth?
How did they decide what they would rely on
and what they wouldn’t rely on?
It’ll be a — it’s a new world to find your way around.
But that new world is in some ways
an old world.
It’s the world from before print,
and the identifiable newspapers.