After reading Bonnie Mak’s introduction to “How the Page Matters”, it made me think about how I read books. I spend so much time thinking about “the what” when I read (the words, the arguments, the stories) that I rarely pause to consider “the how” when I read. More importantly, how the physical page itself shapes my understanding.
There was one passage that particularly struck me. “The page transmits ideas, of course, but more significantly influences meaning by its distinctive embodiment of those ideas.” (page 5) This seemingly straightforward observation leads to a deep line of investigation. With this, Mak is arguing that the page isn’t just a neutral container for information, it’s an active participant in creating meaning. The selection of paper or parchment, the size of the margins, and the inclusion or exclusion of images are not only aesthetic choices. They are also cognitive ones that radically change the way we interact with text.
What really got me fascinated with the reading the most is Mak’s challenge to the notion of “print culture” as a discrete historical era. I’d always kinda accepted the common narrative that the printing press created a revolutionary break from manuscript culture, but she presents me to see continuity and overlap. Even today, as we navigate between print books, PDFs, and mobile screens, I never would’ve thought we would be participating in the same ongoing conversation about materiality that medieval scribes engaged with when choosing between papyrus rolls and codices.
This makes me wonder about our current moment of supposed digital revolution. Are we really experiencing something unprecedented, or are we simply the latest chapter in a much longer story of technological adaptation? How does the material difference affect my understanding and memory when I read an article on my phone as opposed to in a real journal? What little changes in meaning take place when I turn in papers as Google documents instead of printed pages?
Mak’s work reminds me that intellectual history isn’t just about tracing ideas through time. It is about understanding how those ideas have been physically instantiated, designed, and redesigned across centuries.
This is a really brilliant post. Indeed, it could serve as the foundation for a longer essay. You have a great understanding of what Mak is doing in her book and why it matters. You’re also pushing towards a So What about our own contemporary moment and rhetoric surrounding it. I’m deeply impressed by this post and hope you will lead us in conversation around it.
Hi Delinda. I recognized having the same experience of not giving notice to the materials I read on over the content they present me. In today’s modern printing, I have formed a preconceived expectation of books being a standard size and on thin, tan, cheaply-made paper. Though this is the “norm” of today’s age, this would have been completely foreign to cultures that had to make paper from papyrus or other natural materials around them. I appreciate where you point us that the digital is becoming our modern day “page” and agree that it is our next step in human innovation as we consider how “tabs” on the web are often referred to synonymously with “pages”.
Hey Delinda,
I loved your response to Mak’s work and your thoughts on our place in a digital revolution. In my opinion, we’re a small yet important trace of an unimaginably long line of media to come. Though on the topic of choosing materiality in comparison to medieval scribes, I would say we have it a bit easier, given our plethora of materials at hand, especially public libraries that offer relatively free resources. Though, on the previous note, one day people may look back and think we had it tough.