Uncategorized

Ozymandias on the history of tabbed browsing:

Observation:

Multi-screen viewing is seemingly anticipated by Burroughs’ cut-up technique. He suggested re-arranging words and images to evade rational analysis, allowing subliminal hints of the future to leak through… An impending world of exotica, glimpsed only peripherally.

I had never heard of this before:

It is clear from these opposed lists that more has changed than the move from control of objects to flexibility of storage and access. What is being stored and accessed is no longer a fixed body of objects with fixed identities and contents. Moreover, the user seeking the information is not a subject who desires a more complete and reliable model of the world, but a protean being ready to be opened up to ever new horizons. In short, the postmodern human being is not interested in collecting but is constituted by connecting.

The chart is from an apparently unpublished lecture by computer scientist extraordinaire Terry Winograd; the commentary is by Heidegger scholar extraordinaire Hubert Dreyfus.

H/T to Snarkmarket commenter John the Heideggerian.

Some people keep tabs open in their browser for days or weeks; I keep them open in my well-loved RSS reader NetNewsWire. (NNW doubles as a browser; I almost certainly do more READING of web content there than in Firefox.)

I like it — it keeps the old stuff next to the new stuff, and puts little pictures of what I want to read or re-read. I usually use MarsEdit to blog stuff, and MarsEdit is really well integrated with NetNewsWire, so it’s a good workflow to keep things open that I want to post to Snarkmarket eventually, or to make some other use of. (MarsEdit doesn’t play nice with Movable Type 3.2 [edit – but see below], which is why I occasionally have crazy characters in my posts for smart quotes, apostrophes, em-dashes, usw.)

Anyways, like any other workflow, this one gets backed up; I can’t think of exactly what I want to say, or (more often) other stuff gets in the way. But I think it’s still good to take some time to register the things I’m thinking about, because you might want to think about them too. Here’s what’s still in my inbox.

• if:book, “design and dasein: heidegger against the birkerts argument.” E-book readers and phenomenology? Content, thy name is Carmody. Disappointingly, author Dan Piepenbring hasn’t actually read a lot of Heidegger, so the argument is a little underdeveloped (check my comment down the thread). I really want to blog about this, but I also wanted effectively to remake the whole idea from scratch, and I don’t have the time right now to do that.
• CFP for Wordless Modernism at MSA 11. Academic CFP listservs come in RSS form now! This is so, so sweet. So is the CFP here: “If, as W.J.T. Mitchell has argued, the ‘linguistic turn’ of the early twentieth century took place alongside a concomitant ‘pictorial turn,’ how does this change the way we approach modernism
  

Speaking of the social life of documents — Clay Shirky shines a light I didn’t quite expect on the roman candle that was #amazonfail:

When trying to explain one

Always good to reread Brown and Duguid’s “The Social Life of Documents“:

In this way, document forms both old (like the newspaper) and relatively new (like the television program) have underwritten a sense of community among a disparate and dispersed group of people. As newspapers recede before broadcast and on-line communication, and as the multiplication of television channels disrupts schedulers’ control over what is seen when, the strong feeling of coordinated performance provided by these documents is changing. One possible result may be that the loss of simultaneous practice will reinforce the need and desire for common objects — the wish at least to see the same thing, if not at the same time. Here the Internet is a particularly powerful medium for providing access to the same thing for people more widely dispersed than ever before. Moreover, the reach of the Internet is increasing a sense of simultaneity as ideas emerging on one side of the world can almost instantaneously be picked up through the Internet and absorbed into the local context by communities on the other.

This essay makes for a nice introduction to a handful of the brainsexy literary/social theorists and historians I like to read: Bruno Latour, Roger Chartier, Michel de Certeau. (Hmm. All French. I guess Benedict Anderson and Joanne Yates are in there, too.)

It also has one of my favorite-ever qualifiers: “Art and eternity are beyond the scope of this essay.”

Michael Leddy pokes holes in Geoffrey Pullum’s critique of Strunk and White, particularly Pullum’s characterization of S/W’s guidance as free-floating, contentless maxims:

Pullum says that “many” of Strunk and White’s recommendations are “useless,” citing “Omit needless words” as an example. On its own, this advice is no more helpful than telling a musician to avoid playing wrong notes. But “Omit needless words” doesn’t appear on its own; it’s accompanied by sixteen examples of how to improve cumbersome phrasing (e.g., “the fact that”) and a demonstration of how six choppy sentences can be revised into one…

Pullum’s summing up

From Polis Is This, a documentary about the great poet, critic, and Black Mountain college rector Charles Olson:

…

I’ve said before and I will say again, I feel a spontaneous affinity for Olson like for no other American historical figure I’ve ever seen, heard, met, or read about.

Matt Richtel whines:

Technology is rendering obsolete some classic narrative plot devices: missed connections, miscommunications, the inability to reach someone. Such gimmicks don

Ouch:

Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write “however” or “than me” or “was” or “which,” but can’t tell you why. The land of the free in the grip of The Elements of Style.

So I won’t be spending the month of April toasting 50 years of the overopinionated and underinformed little book that put so many people in this unhappy state of grammatical angst. I’ve spent too much of my scholarly life studying English grammar in a serious way. English syntax is a deep and interesting subject. It is much too important to be reduced to a bunch of trivial don’t-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can’t even tell when they’ve broken their own misbegotten rules.

That sounds like standard-issue Chronicle of Higher Ed blunderbussery, but the author, Geoffrey K. Pullum, knows what he’s talking about — he’s a linguist, and co-wrote The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language — and the bulk of the essay is a startlingly comprehensive, point-by-point, and erudite take-down of Strunk and White.

Read more…

I had a dream a few nights ago where I was defending my dissertation. Actually, it wasn’t clear if it was my dissertation defense or another job interview. Anyways, this is what I said. (Replace the word “Rehabilitated” with “Educated.”)

That night, I slept peacefully, content to finally have revealed the truth.