Something that struck me in reading the post was the idea that paper was a "luxury" for the poor thereby inverting the hierarchy of class I'm assuming. It's interesting because in Selfe's article she talks about how the computer stratifies the hierarchy and keeps it in places, socially at least. With the proliferation and comparable cheapness of computer technology these days, it would seem that the computer would replace the paper over time. However, that isn't the case. In fact, the invention of the computer further distances the poor from the well off and paper is becoming obsolete in the process further disenfranchising this "luxury" the poor may have had. Writing a book nowadays, without some sort of electronic counterpart, does not bode well for the author. If the poor are to raise themselves up out of despair by writing on paper, then boy they may be shit out of luck.
Also, the idea of the temporality of paper and the internet is interesting as well. I think I would classify what we have with the internet as more ephemeral than temporal. It's something that really can't be pinned down in time. There are fads and trends that fluctuate that seem more dynamic and fluid than that which paper would afford us. Of course, there were fads and trends when technology wasn't as advanced as it was today, but the network of information and connectedness makes the idea of trends easier to start and more quick to end. They say whatever you post on the internet lasts forever. Somewhere in the archives of time and internet things exist for all to see. However, I firmly believe there is a place where things on the net go to die. There is only so much space on the internet to hold information. So, all in all, there are distinct differences between what paper does and what the internet does. I think that as paper is going wayward that the social classes will become further and further distanced to the point where someone will have to say or do something about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment