Reading, Writing and Electronics
I wasn't sure whether to post this one under books/reading, or tech/computers. It's a bit of both, and more than either.
A few years ago I wrote about the exciting possibilities of computers and technology when it came to publishing. eBooks, self-publishing, blogs, instant communication - it's all true, it's all happening, and it remains exciting. But like Prometheus' gift of fire to mankind, it is not without a price.
It's true, there are more ideas flying around, some of them very exciting, than ever before. Communications among people across the world have been enabled - and with instant (if sometimes amusing) translation services, it's even possible to share ideas with people who speak a different language.
Writers who otherwise would never get past the gatekeeping of the publishing house can now bypass that and go directly to print via Amazon and other self-publish services (going straight to eBook to avoid high costs). Small "publishing" houses have even sprung up to assist these writers, helping them promote their books via online "book tours" with book review bloggers (like yours truly).
Speaking of bloggers, Drudge may have done it first, but more and more people interested in current events have created websites where they search out, test, perhaps editorialize, but otherwise publish the news - much of which you'll never hear on your favorite TV and radio syndicated news.
And again, that international benefit: we can read news of our own nation as seen through the eyes of those who watch us from afar. It can be a very enlightening experience, and one that (sometimes) brings a level of sanity to heated exchanges over current events.
Now, for the downside, as with that gift of fire. It can heat, it can cook. But it can burn, kill, destroy as well.
First and foremost, like many others, I have realized that I spend a tremendous amount of time wasting my time. With so many opinions posted, so many non-news stories based on flawed thinking and a lack of facts, it's easy to get trapped in an endless cycle of looking for "the facts," finding conflicting information, trying to set the record straight, and ending up in electronic shouting matches.
Because of a certain anonymity offered by electronic communication (as opposed to in-person, and even, oddly, on paper), people feel free to write truly egregious things. There is, as always, an upside and a down to this: we begin to get a look inside people's minds and hearts, but at the same time, the instant "publish" button and heat of the moment exaggeration of online communications no doubt warp the extreme of people's opinions and ideas.
In the case of online publications (eBooks and articles) - you begin to realize how valuable an editor can be! Spelling, grammar, tightness of writing, even internal consistency of plot - all vanished. Editors were our 9th grade English teachers, reminding us to add a comma to make a sentence easier to read; asking us if this sentence is really necessary to advance our story or argument; handing us a dictionary and demanding that we check our spelling.
I am asked to review many eBooks, and I am generally happy to do it, as I support whole-heartedly the self-publish industry. But some of the books that I receive have clearly never seen another pair of eyes than the writer's. To all who would self-publish (long format, and not for simple online communications): if you can't afford an editor, at least have someone else read your material. It can only benefit your story.
Finally, there is the problem of shorthand communication in general. Yes, the "your, you're" disaster has happened and the difference is lost. Speaking of lost, there is the "lose, loose" issue, another loss for precision in language, as are the "two, to, too" and "its, it's" skirmishes. Commas - never mind. There had already existed a battle between those who believed in the serial, or Oxford, comma (I am one of them, flying the flag of the defeated long after the war has been lost), and those who did not. Now, even commas which the heretics agreed should be there are gone. I'm sometimes forced to read a sentence three and four times before understanding what the writer is trying, poorly, to communication.
Yes, I can understand the abbreviated spelling that occurred in the early days of texting - remember when you had to hit a key three times in order to get to the letter you wanted to use? Understandably, typing "u" rather than "you" became an easier, faster way to share ideas. Now, though, the keyboards are virtual, and it's just as easy to type "you" as "u." And certainly, now that you have to shift the keyboard to another version to type "2" rather than "too," it is only for effect that we say "u 2" rather than "you, too."
But it's worse than that. What I have noticed now is that the degradation of written language has followed that of the spoken word. "Imma" rather than "I'm going go;" "S'up?" has taken over for "what are you doing?" or even "what's going on?"; even something as simple as "gonna" replaces "going to." Then there are the physical gestures indicated by acroynms: "smh," or "smdh" (if you're really cool); FP; and the ever-popular "LOL."
Ok, some of it makes sense (I just started that sentence with "ok," an abbreviated form of, "Yes, I understand and can agree with...") and language evolves. We have less time than ever and our attention is more divided, hence, every effort to cut corners.
But every so often, when I read something eloquently, carefully, thoughtfully, and well-written, I wax nostalgic and wonder: if Shakespeare were alive today, would he write "What a piece of work is man!" or "WTF." FP.
A few years ago I wrote about the exciting possibilities of computers and technology when it came to publishing. eBooks, self-publishing, blogs, instant communication - it's all true, it's all happening, and it remains exciting. But like Prometheus' gift of fire to mankind, it is not without a price.
It's true, there are more ideas flying around, some of them very exciting, than ever before. Communications among people across the world have been enabled - and with instant (if sometimes amusing) translation services, it's even possible to share ideas with people who speak a different language.
Writers who otherwise would never get past the gatekeeping of the publishing house can now bypass that and go directly to print via Amazon and other self-publish services (going straight to eBook to avoid high costs). Small "publishing" houses have even sprung up to assist these writers, helping them promote their books via online "book tours" with book review bloggers (like yours truly).
Speaking of bloggers, Drudge may have done it first, but more and more people interested in current events have created websites where they search out, test, perhaps editorialize, but otherwise publish the news - much of which you'll never hear on your favorite TV and radio syndicated news.
And again, that international benefit: we can read news of our own nation as seen through the eyes of those who watch us from afar. It can be a very enlightening experience, and one that (sometimes) brings a level of sanity to heated exchanges over current events.
Now, for the downside, as with that gift of fire. It can heat, it can cook. But it can burn, kill, destroy as well.
First and foremost, like many others, I have realized that I spend a tremendous amount of time wasting my time. With so many opinions posted, so many non-news stories based on flawed thinking and a lack of facts, it's easy to get trapped in an endless cycle of looking for "the facts," finding conflicting information, trying to set the record straight, and ending up in electronic shouting matches.
Because of a certain anonymity offered by electronic communication (as opposed to in-person, and even, oddly, on paper), people feel free to write truly egregious things. There is, as always, an upside and a down to this: we begin to get a look inside people's minds and hearts, but at the same time, the instant "publish" button and heat of the moment exaggeration of online communications no doubt warp the extreme of people's opinions and ideas.
In the case of online publications (eBooks and articles) - you begin to realize how valuable an editor can be! Spelling, grammar, tightness of writing, even internal consistency of plot - all vanished. Editors were our 9th grade English teachers, reminding us to add a comma to make a sentence easier to read; asking us if this sentence is really necessary to advance our story or argument; handing us a dictionary and demanding that we check our spelling.
I am asked to review many eBooks, and I am generally happy to do it, as I support whole-heartedly the self-publish industry. But some of the books that I receive have clearly never seen another pair of eyes than the writer's. To all who would self-publish (long format, and not for simple online communications): if you can't afford an editor, at least have someone else read your material. It can only benefit your story.
Finally, there is the problem of shorthand communication in general. Yes, the "your, you're" disaster has happened and the difference is lost. Speaking of lost, there is the "lose, loose" issue, another loss for precision in language, as are the "two, to, too" and "its, it's" skirmishes. Commas - never mind. There had already existed a battle between those who believed in the serial, or Oxford, comma (I am one of them, flying the flag of the defeated long after the war has been lost), and those who did not. Now, even commas which the heretics agreed should be there are gone. I'm sometimes forced to read a sentence three and four times before understanding what the writer is trying, poorly, to communication.
Yes, I can understand the abbreviated spelling that occurred in the early days of texting - remember when you had to hit a key three times in order to get to the letter you wanted to use? Understandably, typing "u" rather than "you" became an easier, faster way to share ideas. Now, though, the keyboards are virtual, and it's just as easy to type "you" as "u." And certainly, now that you have to shift the keyboard to another version to type "2" rather than "too," it is only for effect that we say "u 2" rather than "you, too."
But it's worse than that. What I have noticed now is that the degradation of written language has followed that of the spoken word. "Imma" rather than "I'm going go;" "S'up?" has taken over for "what are you doing?" or even "what's going on?"; even something as simple as "gonna" replaces "going to." Then there are the physical gestures indicated by acroynms: "smh," or "smdh" (if you're really cool); FP; and the ever-popular "LOL."
Ok, some of it makes sense (I just started that sentence with "ok," an abbreviated form of, "Yes, I understand and can agree with...") and language evolves. We have less time than ever and our attention is more divided, hence, every effort to cut corners.
But every so often, when I read something eloquently, carefully, thoughtfully, and well-written, I wax nostalgic and wonder: if Shakespeare were alive today, would he write "What a piece of work is man!" or "WTF." FP.
Comments