Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Writing Online: The Key to Literary Immortality

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted April 23, 2008.


The advantage of publishing online rather than in books? Nobody can burn the Internet.
Advertisement

It's been years since I've taught a writing class, and during those years writing has changed completely. Back in the 1990s, I taught writing at UC Berkeley using books and movies. My students would read the books to get a sense of how writing worked, and watch the movies to have something to write about. They got what you might call multimedia input (books, movies) but there was only one possible kind of output: linear narratives written on sheets of paper.

When I taught writing for the past couple of weeks at the Kearny Street Project's Intergenerational Writers Lab, I couldn't imagine teaching writing using books and linear narratives. I taught writing by showing my students how different software applications could help them structure their writing.

Together they built a wiki, a type of Web site that many people can edit at the same time. Wikis, it turns out, are ideal for exquisite corpses, tales begun by one person and finished by several others. One writer stops, and next one jumps right onto the Web page and continues the story.

Then I made them all join Twitter, a social network I've written about before that lets you to post messages to your friends only if they are 140 characters long or less. You have to communicate succinctly, but engagingly enough to keep people reading. After the whole class had been twittering to one another for a week, we read a chunk of our twitter stream out loud. It sounded like a strange but compelling play, with each of us voicing our own (short) thoughts, sometimes chatting back and forth to each other, and developing odd, poignant themes as time went on.

My students didn't think it was odd to be writing with Web tools. What was unusual to them, I think, was that I referred to the kind of writing that they do all the time as "publishing."

"Writing online isn't publishing; it's posting," one said. Other students said you couldn't really publish fiction online because everyone would assume it was real. At the same time, they felt like nothing online was "real." It wasn't solid, like a book with your name on the spine. I know what they mean. Although most of my publishing is done online, I still write for print publications. But I do so because I see no distinction between online and print: I like publications that exist in both forms; therefore I write for both.

To me, there is one great distinction between print and Internet publishing, and that is storage. Where should I publish if I want people to be able to read what I've said after I die? Books are excellent because they have an interface that holds up easily over time: you open the book and read it. You don't need a particular software program or operating system to make the file open.

But books can be burned. All copies of a book can be wiped out by one crappy political regime bent on censorship. Online it's much more difficult to burn a book. Just try deleting a book or movie or sound file you want suppressed. Ten copies pop up elsewhere. Then 10,000 copies. And they're stored on servers all over the world, in countries where your shock troops can't reach, in high school kids' closets where even their parents can't reach.

Sure the oil reserves will run dry, or an electromagnetic pulse could wipe all of Google's server farms clean. Then you'd want those books as backups. But I don't think electricity itself is something we'll ever lose as a civilization. There are just too many ways to make it: water, air, sun, the motion of your legs as you ride a bicycle -- all can be converted into enough energy to boot up a laptop and read what's been written there.

I guess what I'm saying is that whether you choose print or digital, odds are pretty much even on whether your words will survive over time. But in the present day? If you want to be sure your words won't be suppressed by some local oppressive regime -- like your nation, your family, or your employer? In that case, the Internet is the best way to publish.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: internet, censorship, writing, online publishing

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who thinks the .txt format might be almost as portable as the paper book format.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
.txt rules
Posted by: Logical Extremes on Apr 23, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For best post-apocalypse results, you could publish to a Rosetta:
http://www.norsam.com/hdrosetta.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice
Posted by: g50 on Apr 24, 2008 1:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sweet column.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 24, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the problem.. all the digital stuff you talk about is good, but one thing is obviously missing from it... depth. The digital is all about things being very quick and succinct. No one wants to read Crime and Punishment off of a computer screen. People don't come to the internet for depth, they come for breadth. If I want a quick story or a few facts it is great. If I want a fuller picture of a topic, I pretty well need a book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry, I have to disagree Posted by: undercover
lap tops and routers
Posted by: wittler youth on Apr 24, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure..thats if you have a lap top..but say a grey mkt. cisco router fails(as they often do) then poof! there gos your book..and every one else's shit..but on line writing is the wip!.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

print vs electronic
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Apr 24, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Books as backup. Interesting concept. The argument sounds like a question during any MLIS student's oral exams. Book: enduring, reprintable, random access, portable, (relatively) unchanging, easily hidden. Not trying to be facetious, there are great advantages of electronic written material, but also great risks and disadvantages. Some risks: changing or deleting files --like government documents or missing e-mails, etc. Another is the constantly changing formats which require the material to be redone completely, or converted to the new format. In the library where I work this is commonplace..where is ___ on cassette (yes, cassette), how to I get this file to open/save on this ___? Not to say the electronic versions of books aren't great (dig the huge reference databases the district subscribes to), but the book is not going away, nor should it. As to Amy's tossed off remark about books being burned--it's harder than you think. For a wonderful true story about a book that made it...

Read: Out of the Flames: the remarkable story of a fearless scholar, a fatal heresy and one of the rarest books in history//by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstein. If your library doesn't have it, there is interlibrary loan. It's about Michael Servetus, the scholar who rejected the Trinity among other things, a physician who acurately traced the ciruculatory system. He was one of Calvin's arch enemies and was eventually burned at the stake in Geneva with his books tied around his waist. Of course, Calvin had "all" his books burned. Almost. Only three have been found--one of the biggest treasure hunts out there. The final one? (spoiler ahead) Calvin's own copy, found and stored (with notes and letters!) in the University of Edinborough. Oh sweet revenge for Unitarians and Librarians everywhere!
Liberalibrarian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nearly every library... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Houston We have a problem
Posted by: perkywa on Apr 25, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a few bad assumptions in this article.

Anyone who has accidentally sent a file, email or other digital "document" off to bit heaven with the push of the wrong button knows digital media is EASILY "burned"...no match and gas required.

We are also assuming that the Internet is always going to be there and freely accessible to all. Anyone who has been following the net neutrality war knows we are one piece of legislation away from millions (maybe billions) of people being cut off from the net.

When you store a document on-line you are storing it someone else's server...kind of like keeping your important papers at a randomly selected neighbors house whom you don't know. If the neighbor decides to keep your papers (as per your "terms of service" agreement) you will need a court order to get them back...IF the neighbor doesn't decide to hit the "delete" key first.

The Internet was developed by the government, for the government (to connect the nukes to the command center) and was only made available to you and me by an act of benevolence called the Telcom Act. If you think the government will always be so benevolent then by all means "publish" everything in digital form on the Internet. Personally I would trust the Stalinist Russian government as much as THIS one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agreed!! Posted by: graffen48
Writing On Line
Posted by: Athy on Apr 25, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writing on line is great as long as we can protect the internet and make it accessible to all. The internet promotes free speech and provides access to information. We need to protect the internet if we want to protect our democracy. Read Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason-" Excellent section on internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A major and fairly important difference...
Posted by: morticia on Apr 25, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...between publishing online and publishing in print is that you tend to get paid when you publish in print.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't burn the internet?
Posted by: willymack on Apr 25, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe that for a minute. If the bushies decided to burn it, it'd get BURNED. Everywhere. After all, who's goung to stop them? Us? Our "congress"? Ha!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not bloody likely Posted by: jnelson4765
» RE: Not bloody likely Posted by: willymack
There's more to the iceberg than the tip
Posted by: jimdoria on Apr 26, 2008 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annalee, I love your column, and I read it religiously, but mostly through Avantgo on my old non-wireless PDA, so I don't often get to comment. But I just couldn't let this bit go by:

But I don't think electricity itself is something we'll ever lose as a civilization. There are just too many ways to make it: water, air, sun, the motion of your legs as you ride a bicycle -- all can be converted into enough energy to boot up a laptop and read what's been written there.

I think this point glosses over so much reality that it borders on denial.

A laptop may only need a few watts to boot up and run, but it is only the end point of a very long and energy-hungry supply chain. From the creation of the chemical compounds used to create circuit boards, to the making of the circuits themselves, to the manufacturing of the discrete parts such as the hard disk, memory chips, even the case - it takes a LOT of energy to get that computer into your hands before you even boot it up. And that's independent of the energy required to run the servers, switches and other gear that make up the Internet.

Our civilization may never "lose" electricity, but it could become a lot more expensive, expensive enough to change entire economies of scale, and make many things we take for granted today little more than memories.

New York City hasn't seen a new bridge or tunnel built in almost a lifetime, despite ever worsening traffic congestion. Why not? Perhaps because our society can no longer afford the kinds of massive public works projects our granparents took for granted. It's conceivable that we might see the end of commercial air travel in our lifetimes, or possibly in our children's lifetimes, if any of the theories about peak oil turn out to be true. There's no good substitute for petroleum-based jet fuel, either extant or in development, that I've ever heard of. Airlines can barely stay in business now. If the price of fuel quintuples, it could be enough to permanently scuttle the airline industry. Our grandchildren might never believe it when we tell them people used to hop on planes all the time without thinking twice about it.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, a terrific thing, but it's current, broadly-available incarnation is predicated on the abundance of cheap energy we've become accustomed to in the fossil fuel age. Whether we can keep it going when that age draws to a close - and keep access widespread and cheap enough for it to be as inclusive as it is now - is very much an open question, I think.

But books... we had 'em before the fossil fuel age dawned, and we'll have 'em afterwards too. My 7-year-old child could make a book from scratch if she wanted, using simple, locally-available materials. She couldn't make a laptop though. Or an Internet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is writing?
Posted by: PerryBrass on Apr 27, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure what is worse, that Annalee Newitz is teaching people "how to write" making this process as dumbed down as it seems here, or that no one is teaching them either how to read or write. There must be an answer somewhere. What we've come out with is the idea that writing as something that actually opens up consciousness is closed: it just can't make it at the Multiplex, on MySpace, or FaceBook. Instead, we just keep feeding people their own narcissism with a lot of sugar on it, and then bemoaning that the kids are too fat to move, think, or speak.
The idea that anything on the Internet is going to last forever is wonderfully silly: it is going to last only as long as there is enough money behind it to keep it going. In that case, my money is still on libraries with hard copies of books, digital back ups of the hard copies, and then hard copies of the digital backups. Oh, and yes, getting anyone to learn how to write from a Wiki is pretty wacky. They bring to it what they brought to it, and leave with exactly the same stuff intact.

Perry Brass, author of Carnal Sacraments, A Historical Novel of the Future and 13 other books.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't be so sure...
Posted by: RobP on Apr 30, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...

" But I don't think electricity itself is something we'll ever lose as a civilization."

well, I'm sure the auto-makers in the 1950's
said the same thing about oil....

just because we 'think' something,
does not make it a reality...

...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]