Books and Print
Random observations I had about the readings:
Hobart and Schiffman (1988) argue that the print revolution challenged the control rhetoric or "commonplace thought" held on the Western world. As Montaigne exemplifies in his Essays, readers then saw the multitude of different philosophies, religions, social norms, values, and such throughout the world because of print, leading them to question the certainty of commonplace beliefs. People were confused, overloaded with information, and rhetoric did not have the "logical spine" needed for handling all of the information print brought to their attention (p. 96). They started wondering if any assumptions they held about order were true. Hobart and Schiffman contend philosophy, which had been the doormat of rhetoric during the Renaissance, took control yet again in this situation.
Something I'm confused about here is how philosophy is necessarily an answer to these uncertainties that concern Montaigne. Hobart and Schiffman contend analytic philosophy--they mention Descartes--resolves ambivalent feelings towards relativism like those espoused by Montaigne. Wouldn't analytics philosophy just be another viewpoint to add to this morass of viewpoints that can be refuted? For instance, while Descartes is a famous philosopher, I know a lot of philosophers take him to task, thought they might embrace his pursuit of a core truth on which we can build. In 702 Monday, Jordan brought up Nietzsche's criticisms of philosophers. He claims that each one believes that they are trying to understand truth, but really they are just promoting their own account of truth; it is no more or less valid than another philosopher's version. Montaigne echoes this thought in H and S's text, chastising those who believe they have a found any single philosopher that has found truth: "Now trust in your philosophy; boast that you have found the bean in the cake, when you consider the clatter of so many philosophical brains!" (cited in Hobart & Schiffman, 1988, p. 106). I guess my question is this: if print led to a relativistic confusion as Montainge exemplifies, how was philosophy/Descartes a fitting answer? Or are H & S merely saying that Descartes' distrust of the perceptual world--and corresponding pursuit of some core truth to build upon separate from these perceptions--was a kairotic philosophic position that effectively disguised itself as an answer?
Briggs and Burke (2002) discuss what they see as important contextual factors surrounding the print revolution (if indeed it occurred rapidly enough to be a revolution, as they mention). They discuss other mediums for communication at the time, such as oral mediums (the pulpit, academic lectures/debates, rituals, plays, spectacles, and coffeehouses) as well as the roles of entrepeneurs in books and newspapers. They discuss how print interacts with these mediums. Like H & S, B & B note how many authors at the time felt overwhelmed by all of information print brought to them: they call these authors' accounts "catastrophic narratives." One author laments that there were "'so many books that we do not even have time to read the titles'" (cited in Briggs & Burke, 2002, p. 15). Interestingly enough, people voice many of these same concerns today with the internet, that perhaps we're on an information overload. As the author of "Is Google Making Us Stupid" and researchers suggest, our attention span may have to adapt to read more articles/websites/whatever but less of the content of any particular article/website/whatever. It may affect our ability to read extended narratives, though research hasn't established conclusively that the new medium affects the way we think.
But as far as a topic not previously discussed in my blog posts, I found the discussion of print and satire interesting. I have to note that I know of an instructor at the University of Dayton that had his students read and respond to Swift's "A Modest Proposal"; he had several students miss the satire completely. Obviously these same concerns come up with internet satire, however. One of my wiki entries for this week is an article about a pro-life blogger who missed the joke in the Onion article, "I'm Totally Psyched about this Abortion!" Satirists ripped those who didn't get the joke then, just like hundreds of people ripped the blogger in the comments section.
Manguel (1996) asserts that readers have always wanted books in different shapes and sizes in this chapter. Like H & S, he notes the advantages of codex book overs scrolls, and like H & S as well as B & B, he mentions how people are afraid the world is going to end because of print. He notes that perhaps new technologies do not eradicate the old but instead make us appreciate them more, however, as he explains that handwritten books were still popular for awhile when print arrived. He notes statistics suggest print books are still selling well, though his information is clearly dated. What I wonder is how long will print books thrive in the world of electronic books? As another article I put on the Wiki discusses, print books are doing okay sales-wise now, but for how long? You can read e-books on your computer, but if you're nostolgic for the "physical weight of knowledge" (Manguel, 1996, can't determine page number) readers perceive print books to be, you can now use e-book readers. Like a codex book, a e-book reader can be read anywhere, such as the bus or subway. At the same time, I wonder if the e-book reader is simply a means for easing our transition into reading books on our computer or some other device.
Finally, Garvey (2003) discusses scrapbooking as an identity constructing practice in the 19th century. They could be shared with a large group or (as was often done) could be kept private. They were also a claim to authorship for some: "[S]crapbooks endorse an ideal not of originality, but of reuse and recirculation, making the old continually new" (Garvey, 2003, p. 214). Garvey compares scrapbooking to our use of the internet frequently. What interests me most is the possible parallels between scrapbooking and assembling a personal music collection today. With Itunes and other such music sharing programs, people can grab from various albums and create their own collection that is unique. I could assemble a playlist to my own choosing, creating my own narrative out of this collection of tracks. DJs, in fact, have been doing this for years. And as Matt pointed out, referencing High Fidelity, the mix-tape can be a sort of art form all its own. Someone can be a musician, in a sense, without every playing a note. More on this train thought could be coming soon to a 701 term paper near you....