Michelle Levy and Tom Mole’s introduction to The Broadview Introduction to Book History gives a comprehensive overview of what to expect and what you should know before reading the upcoming pages.
I found myself thinking about books as a form of technology while reading this text. The modern technology I am most familiar with is computers, which also has epochs that reflect books. The transition from scrolls to the codex could be seen as a form of making written technology more efficient. Similarly, computers were initially massive, clunky, and much slower than a persons’ calculations. Over time, they became efficient and cheaper to produce (as reflected by Gutenberg’s printing press).
More and more people begin to work with computers as they become more accessible. Computers go from something that could only be found in the military to something only in the university. From there, it gradually becomes more accessible to the point that it is in most homes. This accessibility (as reflected in the fourth epoch of books) creates what could be argued as a “computer culture” in the West, exemplified by the graphic below.
Where this parallel breaks down is in the fourth epoch, “when print faces competition from an array of new media” (xvi). That may very well be because we haven’t reached that point yet. It could also be argued that the competition is AI. I would disagree with this, however, because AI does not seem to be a radically new technology. Rather, it is an example of the massive increase to the computational power as a result of Moore’s Law.
I am unsure how to feel about the concern that screens make us “worse” readers and putting a value judgement on “extensive” versus “attentive” reading. As mentioned in Professor Pressman’s article, Old Media/New Media, Marshall McLuhan says that “we march backwards into the future” (1). Is there something inherently bad about reading a few works extensively as opposed to many superficially? Could the end product be the same? Does it matter? Could it be, that our nostalgic love for books is painting how we see reading in the modern age? These are all questions that I am not sure I have the answer for yet.
Hey JJ,
I loved your entire response, and wanted to comment on an opinion you made within it. Your stance diverges from the idea that the computer’s new competition is AI. While I had to look up Moore’s Law to clarify, I’d say I agree with you in some regards, but less in others. As far as I can tell, it is true that AI naturally follows computing systems due to its reliance on them. Though I would argue AI is a radically new technology for one reason I’ll present. Give a caveman a computer and a newspaper, and he may be able to piece together the correlation. But give a caveman a computer and AI (which is still evolving), I’d argue he’s baffled how an inconceivable super genius came to be from screens. And for that reason, I believe AI is likened to the discovery of fire–something with seemingly unlimited potential for redifining our society as we know it.
Hey Sam!
That’s a great point, it reminds me of the Turing Test–Alan Turing’s idea that for AI to be considered intelligence then it needs to be able to convince another person that it is another person. It would make sense for computers to be considered another layer of technology if it passes the Turing Test. It would be interesting to explore the caveman example further. To what extent could the caveman figure out the computer? Could he browse the web? Just read articles on it? Watch YouTube? Could he figure out how to code something? It is the kind of hypothetical that is impossible to know but fun to think about 🙂
Hi JJ,
I really liked how you brought up the history and transition of modern technology and how that can be compared to older technology like books, scribes, and presses. Before computers were fully online or on a screen, they were kinda done by “scribes” as well which is an interesting connection. My grandpa was a “computer” decades ago and had to write out all the numbers and crunch everything by hand for hours as his job. It’s like the development of technology had to go back and start from the beginning like scribes and only able to write or copy one document at a time.
Hi Janesa,
I hadn’t even thought about human computers, that’s a great point! It makes me wonder how the concept of the “computer” could be analyzed in a similar way to how the concept of the “book” could be analyzed. Where did the computer begin (human computers, Turing machine?) Where did it end (AI?) What constitutes a computer (calculators, phones, “smart” devices?)