“The Medium is the Massage” and Other Forms of Cultural Change

Posted on by
3

I thoroughly enjoyed Borsuk’s second chapter of Book. What really stuck out to me was the discussion about how the physicality of a book can impact the information inside it. For example, Borsuk mentions how “the publication of scientific treatises allowed scholars to engage in dialogue and debate with thinkers far removed, directly facilitating the spread of ideas that would flourish with the Renaissance” (84). In other words, the fact that science was being written down as opposed to being passed down orally allowed it to be spread much further and faster, thus leading to the Renaissance. New technology plays a strong role in creating and molding a certain type of society–whether that be through the accessibility of information or the way in which it is transmitted.

Another example of this phenomenon is “the passivity of watching television” which is juxtaposed with the “romance of disembodiment” that comes with reading (86). This can be connected to Marshall McLuhan’s argument in “The Medium is the Massage” that the medium is an integral part in how the message is interpreted by the audience. Here, Borsuk makes the argument that watching TV is a passive form of entertainment as opposed to the “romantic disembodiment” of reading. On top of the fact that media technology can radically change accessibility (thus the breadth and depth of that knowledge), a culture whose mass media is all books will differ from a culture whose mass media is all TV because there is an inherent difference in how these mediums are interpreted by most people.

The Relationship between Book and Reader

Posted on by
1

Following the advent of the printing press, the relationship between books and people slowly became something more akin to what we are familiar with now. The printing press allowed for faster production, standardized grammar, and the rise of credited authors, along with many other developments. With this, we see the emergence of the Book as a product and as a companion. More and more people are reading and collecting books, and so thus creates the start of the feverish book community.

Throughout chapter two of Borsuk’s, “The Book,” she discusses the beginnings of the marketability of the Book. While explaining incunabula, Borsuk notes that printed books were designed to look like illuminated manuscripts in which people already recognized and were familiar with. With these design choices, books became more trustworthy and slowly earned their place within homes since they were fashioned after liturgical codices. These new books were not made to be revolutionary so that they remain familiar for their new audience.

Later, Borsuk goes on to explain the process of bookbinding and the physical body of the book. As the book evolves into what we have today, there is an increased rise in book ownership. Books are no longer a communal object but rather a personal device. In the section, “The Body of the Book,” Borsuk writes, “These modes of claiming a book point to a moment when ownership determined aesthetics, before books became uniform, mass-produced commodities whose bodies bear the marks of manufacturing standards, marketing, and bookselling.” This is an interesting period where people were able to decorate and emboss their books to their liking. This reminded me of videos I have seen where people ‘destroy’ their books in order to rebind them with a new cover or add new endpapers. Most of the time in these videos, those books are often fashioned in a style that brings to mind old books. They are typically embossed with gold foiling and sometimes have gilded or painted pages. To me, this shows that the marketability of the Book is cyclical. The books of the past have progressed to where we are now, however we try to revert to old practices.

Furthermore, in the section, “The Intimate Book,” Borsuk notes, “At this point they became the intimate spaces we now expect them to be, whether guiding one through the stations of daily devotion or conveying ancient thought on the structure of tragedy. While we currently enjoy many different kinds of reading experiences, in Western culture “the book” is almost universally seen through this intimate lens.” Books have become a private affair, where the reader is now able to have their own conversations with the book. In this new, intimate manner, readers were able to interact with their books in a deeper way. They use marginalia to mark up their books and are encouraged to “engage more deeply with their books and turn them into private spaces for dialogue.” This shows that reading was developing into something deeper. Readers were able to have conversations with the author, who was able to be credited for their work when printing became mechanized. From Amaranth Borsuk’s “The Book” it is clear that readers have always had an intimate bond with books that has flourished over the centuries following the widespread availability of books.

Worshiping the Book Through Annotation- Week Five

Posted on by
2

Borsuk in the second chapter discusses the intimacy of the book, of reading it, of having something uniquely made. Printshops designed “printer devices” to make their shops stand out, with a book uniquely theirs, tied to them. My question is do we have that same intimacy and relationship with books as readers to the makers and writers?

I covet it, sometimes I think I might worship them. Even as a kid, I hated writing in books. I still don’t unless I am deliberately instructed to do so with annotations and highlighting. I internally cringe when someone dog tags a book page. On my bookshelf, you will rarely find a book of mine to be fully annotated. While I don’t usually annotate as I’m reading as it brings out of my state of focus on what I’m reading, if I do, I use sticky notes and page markers to make point of things. I can’t will myself to write on pages because I feel I am ruining the art of the delicate paper and letters that the printer compiled. I think have this intimacy for books, but I am really just coveting it and not allowing myself to have an actual relationship with the words and pages?

I had this question when I went to bible study last week and everyone had written and highlighted in their bibles. They had a chorus of words in all the margins or wherever they could fit to describe their thoughts on the passage. They have bibles now that have space for notes on the each page to write down your thoughts. By writing down everything, they have a personal relationship with their bible book which gives them a stronger understanding of the text and of God. And that is the point, to get something out of the book, to create an understanding with the book. By annotating it, it increases their importance to them and everyone that made that book.

Annotating and writing in the book creates a personal connection to the authors and the makers of the book. If we sanctify a text so much where we can’t touch it, do we lose part of the connection we have with it or making it stronger by giving it this mystical and powerful presence?

The Commercialization of Books

Posted on by
2

While reading chapter 2 of Amaranth Borsuk’s The Book, I learned many things about the printing press that I did not know before, particularly because I didn’t know much about it. I knew the name of Johannes Gutenberg, but I knew nothing about him or the machine itself. Reading about how the machine worked was really interesting! I also appreciated the addition of Gutenberg being important for European book printing, but there already had been some version of book printing in China and other areas. Lots of cultures, and people within those cultures were inventing their own ways to speed up book production.

What I found the most interesting was the section on copyrights and intellectual property. I never thought about it, but with older books being used as religious texts, and especially since they were written by scribes, the author wasn’t as important. It’s hard to imagine from the modern perspective. The shift occurred because of the printing press, which is when books became more about the content than the object (pg 100). The artistry began to matter less and less, and even I grew up being told not to judge a book by its cover. People could purchase, own, and read their books, and because of how fast the publishing industry grew it became necessary to create copyright and public domain laws. I don’t think this shift was very important to the masses. After all, books were bought for their content. And the modern book publishing methods would be considered miraculous to those even 100 years ago. I just think that mass production can sometimes make something lose what made it special.

What even are Majascules and Miniscules?

Posted on by
1

This is an awesome chapter that taught me plenty of things I’ve never known before. Of course, I don’t know everything about a book, especially the fact that upper- and lower-case letters literally meant they were stored in the upper and lower cases of shelf organization. After learning that in class, I was mind blown! It is truly such an amazing privilege to learn about the history of minute things like letters and how they originated.

I remember in class we were discussing upper and lower cases as a literal technical term for printing presses. What I find interesting is that we continue to credit Gutenberg for the “invention” of the printing press when he only created a business that spread printing throughout Europe. I’m not excusing his contributions to book history, however, I was please to learn that others came before him. According to Borsuk, a “Chinese engineer Bi Sheng […] developed a technique for printing from clay” (73), which is not as well-known. Sheng developed this in 1041, around 4 centuries before Gutenberg. This shocked me especially because of how much credit we give Gutenberg who barely even ran his own business. His financier and son-in-law took over the company when Gutenberg failed to repay investments.

But to the real point of this post, I seriously had no idea that upper- and lower-case letters are also called majuscules and minuscules. I knew miniscule was at least an adjective, but I never considered it as a noun. I distinctly remember discussing this in class because a peer asked what they were called before ever being put in cases. We didn’t know the answer, but this book revealed it. I find that aspect about reading super fun because there is always something new. That’s the reason why the definition for book gradually changed over time.

With the invention of the printing press, replications of the bible were being produced in larger quantities. Those with access to acquire a bible from a printing press had money and power, which were usually churches who read from the bible. Therefore, the definition of book shifted from more of a physicality to an ideology. That ideology was the fact that books held knowledge and, at the same time, power. It really makes me wonder if people fetishize books for their idea of “power” or if there is some other underlying reason.

Week 5: Book as Content and Commodity

Posted on by
2

In Chapter 1, “The Book as Content”, in Amaranth Borsuk’s, The Book, Borsuk walks us through our changing perception of books as content rather than object. Borsuk explains that, “we might generalize the historic moment at which the printed text arises as one of increasing intimacy between individuals and texts, which accounts, in part, for the form of the book as we know it today” (Borsuk, 83). The book, in the form we know it today, reflects the shift of books becoming not only a more intimate experience between book and reader, but also evolving around the needs of the reader. Instead of simply consuming information, actively engaging with the text, a “dialectical relationship” between reader and author became valued. 

This shift in perception allowed for books to become commodities. Borsuk explains that, “these reader-focused elements were just as important to marketing as to book use. They mark the codex as a commodity” (Borsuk, 88). “Authors and publishers activity courted this kind of dialectical relationship”, and began to consider not just the information books contained, but also how the physical design appealed to buyers. Features that we see today like open margins left space for and encouraged “active annotation–a visible and tactile engagement of mind with page”, making books more interactive and personal, and in turn increased desirability and market value (Borsuk, 89). As the needs of the reader changed, the form of the book did as well. The printing press allowed for books to be standardized, mass produced, and more accessible for a widening audience of readers. However, this also made books products to be designed and sold, rather than rare, sacred objects only found in monasteries and universities. The new commercialized market for books, shaped by consumer demand “played a key role in the commodification of the book and in our changing perception of it as content rather than object” (Borsuk, 109). 

The Changing Methods of Creating the Book

Posted on by
1

Somehow, I feel that our obsession with the ideas within books restricts us from our understanding of them as commodity. As Borsuk illustrates in chapter 2 of The Book, the actual item of a book gradually morphed from something hand-done by scribes to production on an industrialized scale. Sandcasting has been done since ancient times, and in the renaissance it was utilized to form fonts, you had pressmen organizing and creating spreads of pages. This was a sector of the economies of the times that must have employed a large percentage of the working populace as literacy rates increased and the demand for books became something ravenous.

What really captured me was the realization that these early books were often created without covers. Borsuk writes that prior to “the nineteenth century, the cover [was] certainly part of the codex, but it [was] not, in fact, part of the book,” and the cover was only affixed to the pages as customers ordered books and publishers bound them once the purchase was made (74-76). I think many bibliophiles can conjure up the dream image of their own library, each book on the shelves bound in matching leather covers, as the aristocracy of prior centuries once did. As the book became a more widespread commodity, this fell largely by the wayside, though there are some contemporary bookbinders that will create wonderfully decorated bindings for the pages of your favorite book, like McCall. However, this practice has become a boutique niche well off the beaten path for most readers.

It’s hard to look at any of this and not think of the fears that must have arose from the workers in these sectors, as type became easier to create and set, as the pressing of pages became automated, as covers and bindings became cheaper to produce or changed in some way, these workers must have been terribly worried about the security of their jobs and the livelihoods of their families. I think in no small way that this mirrors many of the same fears we have today with the rise of digitization and the exponential expanse of AI in our world. What will become of us? What are we to do?

If we look to the book and its manufacture, I think there should be some answers that lay to rest the fears many in society now have in regard to this. As the creation of books changed with the values of consumers, so too did the industry. While at one time, bookbinders might have been employed in the thousands, it is now largely automated and a few have continued the practice. I think that the book, and knowledge, or humanity in general, will follow much the same path. The way we arrive to its end might be ever shifting, but there will always be a need for the human hand to mark the world in some way. It might be tempting to agonize over the looming iRobot or Wall-E end of civilization, but given the tenacity of mankind, this is terribly unlikely. As bookbinders faded from the forefront, artists took up the mantle, creating the wonderfully decorated covers we see today. As readers once relied on a few authors to create the vast majority of content, now there are an uncountable number of those laying words to paper. There is an ebb and a flow to all things. I think that no matter how our perceptions or stereotypes of it might shift, the book will always be.

Week 5: Books Are Not Just For Reading

Posted on by
1

When I read Borsuk’s second chapter, it left me thinking about how drastically the world’s relationship with books has shifted over just a few centuries. The transition the author describes from medieval manuscripts as precious objects to Gutenberg’s mass produced volumes represents felt more than just technological advancement, it’s rather a fundamental reimagining of what knowledge can be and who gets to access it.

What struck out to me the most is how the printing press didn’t just change how books were made, but completely transformed their social function. In the days when monastic scribes copied texts by hand, books were essentially exclusive, even magical items. Not only were the illuminated manuscripts Borsuk depicts literature, but they were also artistic creations, status symbols, and sources of both worldly power. It showed that reading was a ceremonial activity that was frequently done in groups.

However, Gutenberg’s invention revolutionized writing in ways that at the time likely looked revolutionary (and dangerous). All of a sudden, books could be swiftly and affordably copied. The author became the primary creative authority rather than just one voice among numerous writers. In the digital era, this relates to the current discussions around authorship, who owns ideas when they may be duplicated indefinitely?

I’m particularly intrigued by Borsuk’s discussion of typography and design. The fact that early printers had to literally design and cast their own fonts really goes to show how technical and artistic considerations were inseparable. Every typeface was a deliberate choice that shaped how us readers experienced the text. This made me really think, in this day in age, do we take typography for granted today when we can change fonts with a click?

Additionally, the chapter poses pressing problems regarding physicality. The touch of parchment, the weight of the codex, and the striking visuals of illuminated letters were the first things that medieval readers recognized as books. This material motif survived even in the earliest printed books. However, we are reading more and more on screens, completely replacing the printed book. It seems to me that we are kind of moving on to the next phase that Borsuk mentions and that we might be losing something important. 

This chapter gave me even more questions from when I last read it. What new forms could occur that we are unable to envision yet if books have always been developing technology rather than static objects?

Residuals Form Content

Posted on by
1

As Borsuk describes the form of the book which we are most familiar with, the printed codex, she prints in the book, “In addition to minute differences in the binding, each book copy will contain marginalia and other residues of reading that adhere to them thanks to their individual history of ownership and circulation. These are part of the copy without being part of ‘the book'” (76). In advent of the printing press and mass production of books, the idea or thoughts within specific copies of the book are what separated each individually in terms of content.

Now, I know this seems like common sense. But even five hundred years ago, things were the same as they are now. Today, we are bonded by an overwhelming sense of commodification in every single product accessible to us. It extends past books. It extends in the same tools we use: electronics, desks, books, pens, etc. What the book does in its many forms though, is it allows the symbiotic nature of humanity to flow from each person to the open pages. Borsuk writes, “Open margins left space for active annotation– a visible and tactile engagement of mind with page” (89). The most overlooked aspect of the mass printing availability is that it allows books to become a tool that is unique to each person that interacts with it. Print gathered content and disseminated it in an accessible manner, but more importantly it sparked the loop of thinking alongside the machine known as the book. As books became personally owned, it was the marginalia that further separated each copy that was distributed. It is the readers thoughts that work alongside the author and the book to form intuitive ideas and meaning.

Content Over Form/Concept Over Object

Posted on by
Reply

In chapter two of The Book, Borsuk discusses how the commodification of the book, and in turn, the creation of the publishing industry, has led to the book as we understand it today: compact, portable, and personal. I found myself very focused on the sections about copyright. Borsuk points to the first copyright as the legal enforcement of “primacy of content over form” (78). It seems ironic to me that as books become more commercial, publishing industries look to designs and additives that can make the book feel more personal.

I see this reflected in the kinds of book paraphernalia available today, from subscription services, to box sets, limited/special editions (with sprayed edges/illustrations/snippets from the next book), etc. Additionally I think this kind of book personalization can be found in the social media presence of authors today. Even if the physical book itself cannot be personalized, then content can be personalized through interaction with the author in digital spaces. In theses spaces readers can personalize their reading experience by asking questions that inspire para-text from the author. This para-text itself is then commercialized (think Dumbledore is gay discourse). I see this a lot with a authors who are active on tiktok.

The focus on content over form also leads to the author becoming a valued figure. Borsuk exemplifies this with copyright law: “In the United States, publiction is not actually required to secure copyright…If a work has been made ‘for hire,’ then copyright belongs to the employer or corporation that commissioned it” (100). This example made me recall the author of The Vampire Diaries, a work for hire book series from Alloy Entertainment, who was fined from writing her own book series after the first three books because the publisher didn’t like where the author was taking the story. After this her series continued to be ghostwritten. I think it’s interesting that in an age where the author itself is part of what’s being commodified we can see that the physical “object” of the author is not as important as the concept of the author.