Not the Old or the New but the Old and the New.

Posted on by
2

I have reflected on how “old” media has influenced the shape and creation of “new” media, but I have never actively considered how the new reframes our thinking and perspective on the old. In, Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media and Textuality, Pressman presents comparisons from other scholars on how old media might be analyzed through our understanding and use of our current media and technology. The postal service America’s Antebellum period is defined as a “precursor to our contemporary digital social network,” these two medias are not sperate, but related to each other in both directions, the postal service is like the social network, and the social network is like the postal service. Old media is not just what came before the new, but also an actual previous version of it. This illustrates how current new media and technology has always been desired and in development, however its previous iterations have had to be created before it.

New media is not necessarily just new, but newer, I think of it like a software update, Media 2.0. New media is not a complete reinvention of the old, but growth upon it that creates a large network of interconnected and related devices that have sprung from each other. The comparison between what is old and what is newer can of course be applied to objects outside media, a NEW iPhone when compared to its previous generations is not new, just newer, a person would not be lost on how to use a new phone, because they are familiar with the old one and vise versa, just as a person would likely quickly realize how to use and view old or new media based on their familiarity with one or the other.

The Fear of Losing Books and the Art of Reading

Posted on by
Reply

In both Michelle Levy and Tom Mole’s “Introduction” to The Broadview Introduction to Book History and Professor Pressman’s “Old/New Media,” the history and evolution of the book are examined to understand the ever-changing production and consumption of books. The Broadview Introduction does this by exploring and establishing “four epochs in the history of the book” (xv) and defining “intensive” and “extensive” reading.” Dr. Pressman similarly explores this subject by considering the impact of “new media” on “old media.” By doing so, both excerpts made me consider how interactions with physical media, specifically books, have evolved and been forced to change with digital media growing alongside them. 

Levy and Mole open up an interesting conversation in Book History’s Introduction about the act of reading and its relation to materiality. They write, “the history of reading can be told as a transition from intensive and extensive reading,” and that “by the end of the eighteenth century, the sense of information overload…became a generalized concern” (xviii). This sentiment, discussed in the Introduction, remains relevant today when pertaining to the internet as a source for literature. It is undeniable that the internet holds a plethora of information that is easily accessible, and because of this ease of access, it is valid to be concerned that society as a whole is losing its ability to read intensively, as we are not forced to sit and bear with a book and can simply search for another online article or book. But, as Levy and Mole mention, this concern of an information overload being the downfall of knowledge when information becomes more easily accessible and available, has plagued us for a couple of centuries now. Levy and Mole reassure us that the extensive reading style associated with abundant information is “a positive set of skills that we use to negotiate information overload” (xix) and that “different reading practices tell us that people read in different ways for different reasons, and that they have always done so” (xix). 

Though I think Levy and Mole’s diffusion of the fear of reading and books becoming a dying practice is effective, and their explanation of how people use intensive and extensive reading for different purposes is true, considering that this was written pre-COVID pandemic, interactions with the internet and people have changed. There has been a significant shift to reliance on the internet and new technologies that don’t require human interaction or encourage deep thinking. I do believe that people have always feared new technologies, whether it be books or computers, but it can be hard to ignore the paranoia of rising anti-intellectualism when you’re living through a time of change.

Bouncing between word, text, and the signifieds– Josue Martin

Posted on by
Reply

The impression given by the “new media” is somewhat enigmatic– acting as a binary with what the old media constitutes– meditating in the intricacies of time and technology and, allows us to deconstruct the relationship between these two processes (thanks Derrida). In Derrida’s Archive Fever, A Freudian Impression, he is concerned with the archive– a term that has various meanings; one that is concerned with two topics–the principles of nature or history and physical and historical processes. Both principles and concepts shelter themselves as he mentions, “The concept of the archive shelters in itself, of course, this memory of the arkhe. But it also shelters itself from this memory which it shelters: which comes down to saying also that it forgets it” (Derrida 2). The paradox described by Derrida where the archive both shelters and forgets resonates with Dr. Pressman’s emphasis regarding “new” and “old media”. The terms “new” and “old media” are not fixed but shift as they are social-culturally adaptive– meaning that their definition is relative to the time period in which they are being discussed as media itself is not linear nor stable. For example, let us remember the beeper— in its time, it was a revolutionary method of communication that made other communication devices “old”. And, it is now a system that is considered obsolete– demonstrating that newness is not an absolute but contingent on new modes of inscription. This is further illustrated by Bolter’s and Grusin’s writings, “comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media”. The paradox described in the archive demonstrates the conventions of recursive media/ life cycles– we preserve to forget and forget to preserve, deconstructing two mutually formative processes that demonstrate how different modes of media are concerned with social-cultural values rather than its materialistic characteristics. This suggests that media is not linear nor fixed but adapts and evolves by reinscribing new modes of inscription that surpasses its predecessors– not materialistically but shifting its focus from a cultural paradigm.

When Books Change, So Do We

Posted on by
1

Reading Michelle Levy and Tom Mole’s The Broadview Introduction to Book History, one passage in particular about the codex stood out to me. In their text, Levy and Mole describe it as “portable, resistant to wear and tear“ and most importantly able to let the reader “flip back and forth between pages and […] move more easily between different sections of the text.“ While this description may seem very obvious to us at first, since this is how we have known books for years, thinking about how the codex was not actually the standard for such a long time really struck me. Taking a closer look at history, one can see that it actually took centuries to replace the scrolls.

This raised one big question for me: how much of reading is not about what we read, but about the form that allows us to read? With the scroll, reading was linear. You started at the top and moved downward. Very simple. With the codex, however, reading suddenly became more flexible. Now you could move forwards and backwards, skip ahead or compare two sections at once. This non-linear movement transformed reading into much more than just consumption. It became an act of navigation. The codex made it easier to divide texts into chapters and pages, to give precise references and to mark important places. In short, the format of the codex did not only shape the book itself, but also the intellectual habits that came with it.

What I find interesting is how similar this is to our current experience of digital reading. When reading online, you cannot only read in a straight line but also switch between various tabs, jump from one webpage and/ or text to another or scroll back and forth. Looking at it, the internet feels closer to reading a codex than reading a scroll. At the same time, it also contains elements of the scroll. Long pages that we read by scrolling down, like articles, news, blogs or comment sections. Digital reading feels like a hybrid which mixes the navigability and flexibility of the codex with the linearity of the scroll. However this parallel also makes me wonder, how fragmented reading can become before it begins to lose depth. If we constantly cross-check passages, open new tabs and shift our attention, do we risk losing focus? On the other hand, digital formats create new ways of thinking, just as the codex once opened new possibilities. They allow for faster comparisons, even broader connections and new forms of creativity.

In the end, what Levy and Mole show with the codex is that a book is not merely a container of words but also a technology that reshapes our relationship to knowledge. From scroll to codex, each form does not simply preserve text. It transforms how we read it. Ultimately, it is not about celebrating or fearing new formats, but about seeing how they slowly shape the way we read and even the way we think.

Old Media/New Media and Bookishness

Posted on by
1

I really enjoyed reading the work of Dr. Pressman in her Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media and Textuality essay, “Old Media/New Media.” The mindset portrayed in this text was incredibly encouraging of the new, while never forgetting the old. As stated in the text, “New media inspires new ways of thinking about older media. The impact of new media not only promotes studies of individual old mediums but also inspires the emergence of new modes of scholarship.” This quote does a great job of stating that new media doesn’t erase the old, but allows us a new way to study what came before it. New modes of scholarship are created every day with technology, creating new ways to spread information and tell stories online. The new wouldn’t exist without the old, so we study the inspirations that led to the new creation. Everything evolves: people, technology, the way we take in our information. It is up to us not to take in the new, or else we will never evolve. It’s like a two-way street; old media helps us understand the new, but new media also allows us to reinterpret the old

Week 3: Different Eyes on the Same Book

Posted on by
1

When I first started reading about book history, I thought it would be a simple field with one clear method. A book is just a book, right? But I quickly realized that the history of books has been studied in very different ways, depending on the country and the tradition. In France, for example, book history focused on how books moved through society and how they influenced big historical events. In Germany, where I am from, the field called “Buchwissenschaft” was more about the practical side, how books were published, produced, and distributed. In Britain, book history developed from bibliography and textual editing, which meant looking closely at different editions of the same work and how small changes could affect the meaning.

I find this really interesting because it shows that each approach asks different questions about the same object. The French way treats the book almost like a historical actor, influencing revolutions and social changes. The German way is more focused on trade and infrastructure, thinking about printers, publishers, and markets. The British way zooms in on the text itself, paying attention to words, punctuation, and editing choices.

As a German student, I can understand why it developed in this way. Germany has a long tradition of book production and publishing, from Gutenberg’s press to the Leipzig Book Fair, so it makes sense that the focus was on how books were made and sold. At the same time, I also appreciate the French and British perspectives because they help me to see other sides of the book that I might not think about otherwise.

What I take away from this is that no single approach is enough on its own. If we only follow one national model, we miss the bigger picture. A book is never only a text or only a product. It is also a cultural force that both shapes and is shaped by history. That is what makes book history so exciting, it asks us to see books from many different angles.

Week 3: The Codex as “Endlessly New”

Posted on by
1

When I was reading Jessica Pressman’s essay, one phrase jumped out at me: books, she says, can be seen as “a medium of endless newness.” At first, that sounded strange to me. I usually think of books as old-fashioned and timeless object compared to phones, laptops, and tablets. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized she’s right, books can still surprise us and even feel new again. Pressman talks about “bookishness,” which is when books become more than just something to read. They turn into objects we admire, even treasure. She mentions things like “die-cut pages” and “collage, color, and design.” I imagine books that have holes cut into the paper, layered textures, or unusual layouts. They almost feel alive. It’s not just about the story inside but about how the book looks and feels in your hands. I’ve had that experience myself when I’ve picked up a book with beautiful illustrations or unusual formatting. I found myself slowing down and paying attention, not just to the words, but to the object itself. I felt also more curios and ambitious to read the book.  This made me think about the relationship between books and screens. I thought immediately about Wattpad as a platform and kindle book reader. Bolter and Grusin, whom Pressman also mentions, say that old and new media shape each other. I see this happening with books today. Because we spend so much time on screens, the physical book has started to highlight what makes it different. A screen is smooth and comfortable to carry but a book can be textured, colorful or oddly shaped. In a way, digital media has made us notice the beauty and aesthetic of books even more. That’s why I like the phrase “endless newness.” It makes me see books not as outdated but as flexible, always finding a way to stay relevant and timeless I would say. I used to worry that reading on screens would replace books completely but now I think the opposite might be true: screens have reminded us of what makes books special.

For me, this is comforting. Books have always been important in my life and I like the idea that they aren’t going anywhere. They may change their look, their form, or the way we think about them, but they’ll keep renewing themselves. Maybe that’s what makes the codex truly timeless it never stops finding ways to be new.

Week 3: Book Studies as Media Studies

Posted on by
2

Books have always served as a source of comfort and nostalgia in my life. As I’ve grown older, my childhood joys mirror much of my adult hobbies as I still love to read on the beach or before bed as much as I loved having books read to me. Something that has continued to interest me throughout our course so far is the concept of preciousness surrounding books that most of our class expresses experiencing. With daily life and academia continually evolving into a more digital world, it is important to consider how our bookish behaviors have evolved or resisted the shift from pages to screens.

In considering the book amidst media studies, Dr. Pressman defines bookishness as “the book is figured within literature an aesthetic object rather than a medium for information transmission, a thing to fetishize rather than to use,” (Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media and Textuality). Through this definition, we are compelled to view the book as an object of aesthetic and symbol. Due to the historic exclusivity of the book, the book has become a status symbol of education and wealth and it may have more significance in society as a visual signifier of these notions than as a tool to access the knowledge inside of it. Though books have become more accessible in the digital age through e-books and audiobooks, the symbolism of possession has not diminished. This can especially be seen through online trends and the rise of Internet subcultures like “BookTok” and “BookTube” where creators show massive libraries or book hauls often without including any critical response or review to the material of the books presented. That’s not to say that books can not be read for leisure as Michelle Levy and Tom Mole’s introduction to book history reinforces, however, these platforms exemplify how the book has continually grown to be a fetish object.

Imagining the Single Book

Posted on by
2

I think that most people in our day and age tend to think of books as a part of a larger whole. They’re things to be collected. They’re things to be placed upon shelves and organized in neat numerous rows either by author last name or spine color or the Dewey decimal system. To see a book all on its own seems so rare that my mind has difficulty even picturing it. I am sure that I have seen it, but there seems to be no good way to orient the display of a single codex on a shelf or on a desk, and it is equally difficult to imagine dedicating oneself to a single text.

But when we think about the history of reading (because to read them is the only rational reason to have any books at all) as something that has evolved over time, with various practices and methods, and we go back, perhaps, to the time of the first codified printing of Don Quixote, readers would have approached the text of the first modern, widely dispersed novel very differently.

As Levy and Mole explain in the introduction to The Broadview Introduction to Book History, “historians of reading sometimes distinguish between “intensive” and
“extensive” reading. Reading “intensively” means returning to a small number
of books again and again, whereas reading extensively involves reading
a much larger number of books (or other printed matter), and often reading
them only once” (xvii). They go on to explain that extensive reading is something of a novel phenomenon in the past hundred years and is a result of easily accessible printed material; “when books were very expensive and labour-intensive to produce (especially when they had to be copied by hand), most people had access to very few books. People often read these books intensively because they didn’t have access to any other reading matter. As a result, they came to know their books well and invested significant emotional energy in them” (Levy et al xvii-xviii). I like to imagine some simple, moderately well-off person in the mid seventeenth century going back to Alonso Quixano and the jousting of the windmills and the trot of Rocinante time and again by the glow of a lantern. There is no doubt that intensive reading of Don Quixote is nothing particularly unique, as it is probably the most studied novel of all novels, but to be that invested in that book because you have no other choice of reading material makes for a much different experience than that of the scholar who can understand why Steinbeck’s truck is named Rocinante in Travels With Charley, and who can tie Cervantes’ novel to numerous other works in the 400 years since its publication.

How does that type of reading alter the reader’s conception of the book itself? Are we still drawn to the same plot points? Do plot points then become of lesser importance? Are we more interested in language? Do we have time for more ornately written sentences? And are we more privy to social commentary, or are we less, with no (or few) other written works to compare to? Is the book something self-contained, as I believe we view it now, or does the book only become a launching pad for the more creative parts of our brain? Must we memorialize it and make it something more than a story?

The last two questions seem to have some answer. We can see it in the artworks of every part of the Spanish speaking world, and very much of the rest of it too. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza may be the most represented characters in sculpture and painting who are not religious figures. You can find them, if you look well, cast in bronze everywhere from remote regions of the Camino de Santiago in northern Spain to bustling downtown squares in Brussels, Belgium.

I would argue that intensive reading of Don Quixote, (and of other books of the early era of widely-available novels) of prolonged, nearly undivided attention to the story and the characters within, allowed readers to elevate them to something of a mythic status. There were artworks created, false sequels written, conversations in the public square, and this came from an inability to access other books.

Readers must have had a sense of infatuation with early novels, allowed themselves to fully exist in their worlds, used these stories as inspiration (not unlike religion), and this is something we’ve seen peter off through the centuries as readers have had access to more and more stories, whether that be in the form of books, television, cinema, video games, or other kinds of entertainment. We read now in a series of flings, ever moving on to the next thing that catches our eye, which in some ways may have led to our viewing them as “a thing to fetishize rather than to use,” as Jessica Pressman says in “Old Media/New Media” (1). Books exist in collections. They are housed in vast libraries. And so, a deep relationship with a singular set of characters and pages and words in a singular world is largely a thing of the past. They are largely ornamental except in the brief periods of time we have them cracked open.

Week 3: Already Thinking About My Final Project

Posted on by
1

While reading this week’s texts, particularly “Old Media/ New Media” by Dr. Pressman, I started getting ideas for my final project. (Or maybe just a personal project.)

The project would be made up of two texts written by me, one physical and one digital. It would also incorporate text and images from whichever special collections text I choose. The physical text would use asterisks, numbered citations, or maybe emoji to “link” to the digital text. The digital text would be an index of hyperlinks, quotes, and other footnotes for the reader to understand the physical text better.

Themes that might be explored in this format:

  • Old vs. New media: The project would question the distinction between “old” and “new,” referencing Dr. Pressman’s writing on Bolter, Grusin, and Hayles. Regarding “Remediation” and “intermediation,” I could show how the physical text and the digital index influence each other and how they’re influenced by other media, both “new” and “old.” Both texts would be influenced by the special collections text, and that text may also be influenced by my project. My interpretation of the text through “new” media might influence how that text is seen by new readers. Readers who already know that text, however, might approach my project differently.
  • Detached Footnotes: Going back to our conversations about Marino’s Marginalia, this project could be about what happens when the marginalia is separated from the text. Eventually the medium I use to create the digital index will become defunct. The one copy of the physical text might be destroyed or kept somewhere inaccessible to most readers. How could someone read one without the other?
  • Subconscious influences: This morning, I texted Raine some of these ideas. It turns out that he started a very similar project last year. I’m not sure if he’s told me about that project before, or if we happened to grab our ideas off the same shelf in the Library of Babel, but the idea of uncertainty as to where ideas come from is one I want to play with in the project. A lot of the digital index will be references to my influences. But what about the ones I’ve forgotten?

This isn’t a project proposal, obviously. It’s a vague creative daydream. Not to be taken too seriously, yet. I don’t even know what genre it should be. Will this be a fictional story? A collection of poetry? Non-fiction prose? All of the above? I probably won’t know until we’ve visited Special Collections. Now that I have an idea of what I want my final project to look like, though, I might be able to quickly home in on a book that could play in this space. Looking forward to this week’s classes even more, now!