Slashdot Mirror
Typewriters, Computers, and Creating?
saddleupsancho writes "Today's NY Times reports that Cormac McCarthy is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written, to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow. What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops? Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation? Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy's generation is about his Olivetti? Would you offer as much for McCarthy's input device if it were a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti?"
The link goes to "Cormac McCarthyl" whereas it should go to Cormac McCarthy.
How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?
I rest my case.
But no typewriters.
Plus, wouldn't the keyboard be what you would want from someone famous? Not the box (assuredly wiped) that stored the bits.
Yes, there is something different. A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears. On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages. In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops. Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all. In 45 years, Neil Gaiman's last 12 computers are going to be sitting in a dump or recycled into new computers.
Also, typewriters are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard. They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life. You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...
speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.
As per the interview below, he did at one point use a word processor, but Neal Stephenson's recent work comes via fountain pen. http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Neal-Stephenson-Anathem/ba-p/678
Try to love the questions themselves -- Rilke
It would be plausible that his typewriter is still functioning, and possibly still as usable as the day it was made. Thus the reason he was able to use it for "all" of his works, which arguably is the main reason it achieves such high value.
Most computers, on the other hand, last at most 10 years or so, after which the writer necessarily has to purchase another computer, on which they continue producing their works. The fact that the works are split amongst machines, some of which may have produced more popular works, might contribute to lessening their respective intrinsic values.
I would offer more for the typewriter simply because it can be kept functional longer than any PC/OS.
A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well. A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.
I think the distinguishing characteristics are more a matter of interesting v. cookie-cutter device, and durable v. throw-away. I would pay money for an interesting, well-designed, durable computer with historical value. But I'm not going to shell out for a generic PC with an expected lifespan of less than 10 years, just because someone famous used it.
In short, the Olivetti has some style, and it will likely continue to work, or can be serviced if not. That may be true of some computers, also--- older Apple products, especially the Apple ][ line and classic Macs, are already becoming collectors' items to some extent. But nobody is going to be shelling out for a 1996 Packard Bell.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The McCarthy typewriter will still be a functional typewriter (assuming it's taken care of by the auction winner)
A PC or laptop decades later would be more useful as a paperweight and would have only nostalgic value, and only to those to whom it held meaning.
Perhaps the typewriter auction winner will author something that gains acclaim. Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Just as a typewriter's mechanism is kind of worn uniquely by the Author's use having bashed the words tangibly into the paper, I suppose the laptop hinge would be worn, or the power button the PC chassis.
Maybe just sell me the the hard drive, I can marvel the was authors work briefly held by the platters as they spun.
How does that not hold the same romance as the type writer? What? No, I dont need to get out more..
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Nothing about Steven King's Wang?
Everyone remembers this right?
Link
So I think the digital material will go well in the future, but I would agree that the typewrite is timeless. it will always work, so it has a bit of intrinsic value in addition to being a machine that produced wonderful things.
I have no use for a typewriter, even if it was owned by a famous person. If you gave me his computer, I'd probably throw away the keyboard and mouse. And since it's probably an old piece of shit computer, it's probably not worth more than ten dollars to me.
So let's see: Typewriter: $0.00. Computer: $10.00. Computer wins.
Considering Gene Roddenberry’s Mac was auctioned for $8,260 back in October which was also discussed here, I'll have to say yes, it would make some money, though the number would probably depend on the owners popularity. For example I am no crazy fan of Cormac McCarthy, but just imagine what the Ubuntu box of someone in the likes of Elvis or Marilyn Monroe or Linus Torvalds (as mentioned above) would fetch if it was to be auctioned.
I've heard quite a few reasons for using typewriters, especially manual. You have to think our your sentences first, since there is no real correction. On my computer I can type and type and type and edit later, but you can't do that on a typewriter (unless you want to retype everything 40 times). This forces you to put much more thought into your words and thoughts.
The force required on the keys (if you have a manual) makes the words feel... costlier... and the sound really is great. I'd imagine that when you really get going the noise helps keep you in the groove. Actually, a good IBM Model M day do the same.
Then there is the fiddle factor. If you gave a 12 or 14 year old a typewriter and say "write a story", all they can do is write the story. Give them a copy of Word (or any other word processor) and they can write, choose a font, a color, edit the spacing.... With a typewriter, you get words and nothing else. No fonts to change. No sizes. All the decisions are made for you.
I'm not much of a writer. I don't own a typewriter (although my brother has beautiful one from the 40s). I can easily say that the thing I like most about this is something that probably resonates with other /.ers: they're really mechanically complex. They weigh a ton and are crammed with tons of little levers and cams and such. A seemingly almost solid block of metal articulates 30 (or so) little hammers and moves the type head perfectly, even at 120 WPM. They are little mechanical marvels. Imagine what seeing the Frank McGurrin type 90 WPM must have been like for people, raised on writing longhand.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Its just a box, as bland as the next guys.
Now, real honest to god typewriter has character, every one is unique.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... my google docs login and my direct neural interface.
**When you're swimming in the creek, **and an eel bites your cheek, **that's a moray!
if you could get the ink ribbons...
OK a new size TV
Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic. A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming. So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.
...a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box..
I am defined by my .emacs and .bashrc, so the computer might be generic in the sense that it is mass produced, but you can find out more about me than you can about Macarthy from his Olivetti.
You know what would be valuable? Less asking stupid questions on slashdot, more learning English.
Neal Stephenson's laptop is not really relevant, because the last several books from him were written with a fountain pen.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
But I wouldn't be offering much for the type-writer, either.
Since we stopped using the stylus on clay tablets.
I blame those quill users.
i would collect old used condoms and sell them on ebay.
just to laugh at the stupid masses that think they have some sort connection to me with the help of said condoms...
ridiculous this world is.
A real writing instrument isn't mechanical. It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.
Typewriters are machines. They separate you from the page, making each letter exactly the same. They jam. They're too heavy. Sometimes they break. /postmodern wit
But for real, use what works for you. Writers fall in love with the tools that let them write, not matter how new or old.
I'd like something in between -- an e-ink screen with a super basic word processor and a USB port for my clicky keyboard, as God intended. Hook up the flash drive, dump it to a laptop to do the final drafts. No distractions, and few limitations for moving text around. I don't care who says what, I can write far faster on a computer than I can with any other method. There's just no comparison.
Typewriters have a leg up on computers in that some are used for the entire career of an author, but the sentiment is not for the thing, but the person who owned it. For example, I'm not a Apple fan per se (they make good stuff--I just don't have the bug), but I would appreciate the chance to see and fiddle with any Apple computer used by Douglas Adams to write a HHGTTG novel.
his machine? Nothing. Nobody gives a damn about it. This mode of thinking is from the pre-electronic information era.
If we still used typewriters every day, nobody would pay anywhere near as much for this. Similarly, when we eventually stop using what we now know as PCs, people will pay much more for a famous PC.
in my storage locker, a 386-based piece of crap from the 1990's if I remember correctly. Maybe I'll ask him if I should auction it off to benefit the FSF. I wonder if anyone would bid more than a couple of bucks.
The Olivetti has worth because of its link to a physical product. I wouldn't value the PC or Mac of an author as much because it was only a general-purpose machine that happened to be used as a literary tool by virtue of the software on it. And I wouldn't pay anything for a decades-old binary image of Emacs. When writing on computer, the text becomes its own thing, it transcends the physical. In some ways, I dislike it because of that. I really enjoy the physical link with the text I get when writing with pen, when clacking on a manual typewriter, or otherwise. The advantages of text sublimated from the physical are great--better storage and search, versioning, editing, independent control of presentation, logical layout, etc. But it makes the tool used to make it less interesting, more mundane, more merely processing. The Olivetti, like my Pelikan, are precision tools purposely made for writing. In this way they become the paraphernalia of the writer, the adjutants of his talent. You pay for that connection. With stuff like this it's always the connection that's important. Beige boxes--even flashy Macs--don't have it.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
It's Santa Fe, not "Sante" Fe! Here in Santa Fe, we mock idiots who can't type properly, but that commonplace error is beyond my understanding... The letters "a" and "e" aren't even next to each other on a qwerty keyboard, so I can't figure out why that error occurs at least one out of 20 times when someone types "Santa Fe". I must see it once a day... credit card receipts from the ultra-crappy Best Buy here have stated "Sante Fe" since they opened -- eight years ago!
I am a writer (or at least, I've written a couple of novels and a few hundred thousand spare words that are lying around waiting to be turned into novels, plus assorted other writing), and I have always written exclusively on a computer.
I should be clear that I'm not trying to compare myself with Stephenson or McCarthy; I'm fully in the amateur rank, but I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing. It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book." I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!).
Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer. I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want. Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)). Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc... I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself. ;)
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
It's harder when a computer is only 7 or less years old to you, as it may feel slow or "old" and you may be sick of it wanting a new device. But if you were to take what you have now, and board it up for 10 years, your opinion will change.
What you have now, won't be able to run programs created 10 years from now. You won't feel like you HAVE to update the device, and in fact because of this you may look at what it's still GOOD at rather than what it may be POOR at.
I have an Atari portfolio. It only has a serial connection, and a telephone connection. The text editor is no more fancy than notepad. The entire thing runs on a mini version of DOS. However it easier to type on than modern devices of it's size. The 3AAA batteries can really last. It fits right in my pocket, with a full keyboard. Between this and my Palm Centro, I don't need a laptop for road trips.
Someday, when my literary genius is finally recognized, they'll auction off my OpenOffice 3.2 Milestone 6. Fans will cherish my toolbar.
I'd put my built-from-scratch multi-core steam machine, with a translucent RaidMax case with cool blue lights, development platform up against any dusty relic any day of the week.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, both devices serve their purpose, but rarity is a key factor in determining value. The line of delineation between using a computer to generate content versus using a typewriter to generate content falls in a distinct areas. Computers run facsimile copies of software used for utilitarian output. Typewriters 'run' a unique hardware, the hardware defining the output, not the software. It is the uniqueness in the typewritter's 'software', the individual nuts and bolds and keys and whatnot that make it unique. You can reformat a computer, change its keyboard, mouse, monitor, practically everything, and the essence of that computer is lost much more easily through this ease of replacement. The typewriter is generally more impervious to this component interchangeability conformism.
Also creative process dynamics come into play, the fact that you can produce a literary classic with a purely mechanical system is almost whimsical, while computers lose their uniqueness factor with most software just being a literal copy.
Pedants will mod me down saying that this is just the progression of technology, but would you rather own a Ford Taurus owned by Richard Stallman or a horse carriage owned by a lesser known person of history?
Then again, people offered thousands of dollars for Michael Jackson's white glove, nullifying my argument perhaps.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Though mechanical, typewriters are also analog and as such have character. From the hammers to the action of the keys there is something unique about each typewriter and there is an appeal. Some typewriters have very smooth action on the keys, some are like typing with a mallet. A letter is askew, the ribbon is running out. It all marks a unique moment in time. A Word file has a date stamp. Maybe built in history but no handwritten note or edit. No XXXX through a word. No inherent mistakes. A computer doesn't age well. I am not sure how many of these machines will be working in 50 years. There is also something definite about a typewriter. You sit down to it and there you are; no playing solitaire for hours while procrastinating. You write. You can XXXX something out or throw it away, but it can't be undone. I can see how a keyboard might be a collectible in future years but whether it is a model M or a Das Keyboard it probably wont have the inherent appeal either aesthetic or historical that a typewriter will have.
I think regardless of it's a typewriter, computer, laptop or whatever tool was used to create some literary genius's art simply comes down to obsession, personal value and inspiration at limitless cost. It's kind of a no-brainer that if there's enough followers to anyone's beloved work, regardless of what it is, there's always going to be the biggest fan with the deepest pocket book that is going to snatch it up because it fills some void in them, aspires them to do something similar, goes along with with their fanatic obsession of other collected items to or it's just a good damn conversation piece.
Hmm... I have assorted computer equipment known to have been used by Jerry Pournelle...
Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with IBM Model M Clicky keyboards (still available here and here!).
So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple "just in case".
So, yeah, you better believe 20, 30, 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them. They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable.
Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
I think the big difference between a computer and a typewriter is that a typewriter is much closer to handwriting. With a typewriter you are actually physically placing the characters on the page, where as on a computer you are simply interfacing with an electronic device.
A typewriter is much more natural, and the user is physically connected to each character typed.
It's also, IMHO much more satisfying to use, from a tactile perspective.
Is it "Cormac McCarthy [link to article on author and his work] is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter, on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written; is there something ... intrinsically interesting and valuable", based on the entirety or on a portion thereof?
Or is it "a guy is selling a thing he wrote stuff with; think it's worth something"?
I'd buy Isaac Asimov's word processor, typewriter or chalk board. I wouldn't buy kdawson's Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian Overlords running 6 flavors of *nix, and a direct neural-to-keyboard port interface.
I think it's safe to assume the guy is selling his history, not the tech. And certainly not the brand, because (speaking as a past office equipment repairer) Vettis suck.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
The biggest advantage of the typewriter over a computer is exactly for writers: it makes him/her think much more before writing.
--
PS: this post was writtent without thinking
As I understand it, Jack Kerouac typed "On the Road" on a continuous roll of paper, without page and paragraph breaks. Because of that innovative way he used it, I think his typewriter would be a little more interesting than most.
When I'm famous I'll be auctioning my /. account. See how well it fares:
Yes, there is something different. A /. account is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears.
[rambling about computers redacted]
Also, /. accounts are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard. They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life. You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...
Sorry about the last sentence, I was browsing slashdot while typing.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
One of my ex-girlfriends had this gorgeous Underwood typewriter which she was given as a gift and she displays in her livingroom. It has a nice aesthetic quality which engages the imagination. --If it had been owned by a famous writer from its age, then it would send thrill-chills down my spine just being near it. --Imagine Mark Twain's fountain pen (or whatever he used) on your desk.
Perhaps when enough time has passed that computers and keyboards are irrelevant, out-moded technology, where few enough still exist that they are museum pieces from a past age, then I imagine they will hold a similar aesthetic quality for people. Especially if you happened to own one which belonged to a famous, culture-shaping individual.
But I suspect we'll have to wait another century or so before we know who will be remembered and revered and who will be lost in time.
Roddenberry? Maybe. I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson. -George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace. (Sorry, George, but it's true.)
-FL
maybe now he'll in complete sentences
It will keep working as long as it's used regularly. A typewriter will seize up if left alone a few years as the oil/grease dries out - especially the 45-year-old oil this machine has (according to the letter of authenticity the author wrote on it, it has never been serviced).
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
How much would you pay for the computer Linus used? I rest my case.
How much would I pay? That's easy. What I am willing to pay for it. Value is relative to the individual, not the object. If you want to pay $10,000 for the shit-stained underwear of Steve-O, then so be it.
Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
'Nuff said.
Technology is technology; the more modern, the more ephemeral. People get attached to things that have durability.
My grandmother was a minor author, with five books or pamphlets under her belt. She wrote them all, in addition to her personal correspondence, on an Underwood manual typewriter from the 1890s. I've had it cleaned and serviced, and expect that it will continue to work just fine for another 120 years, assuming we can still get the ribbons (and if not, making them doesn't seem that daunting). Every letter that I type on it, every journal entry, connects me to her because she used it for so long.
In contrast, since my first laptop purchase in 1992 or 1993, I've had eight or nine of them. They don't last. There's only one that I remember fondly (and still have a working model) but the likelihood that it will work in 20 years is quite low. The battery certainly will no longer hold any appreciable charge. My current laptop could disappear and be replaced with a newer model and I'd not really blink.
My grandmother's typewriter has a cast iron frame and steel parts. My best laptops have had cast magnesium frames and mostly plastic parts. In the 50 years that my grandmother used her typewriter, some of the letters started to show wear. My laptops have universally shown keyboard wear in under 2 years, most in under 1 year.
If computers had an appreciable lifetime beyond two or three years, then quite possibly, we might find the same attachment, but we don't. The only real attachment that people have are to some keyboards, most notably the IBM Model M, which is built like an old-style typewriter.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
funny - without knowing what the topic was, when I saw the mention of the Olivetti typewriter I had warm memories of the Olivetti portable typewriter I used to pay my way through college by typing other students' term papers.
I don't think the emotional response is limited to typewriters. I remember fondly my first computer - a Kaypro - a portable computer at only 26 pounds! Back then (1983) home computers were unusual and did unusual things. Now they are pretty routine, and many people don't use them for much more than one could do with a high-end smartphone. (Play some music, display some pictures, connect to the internet, check out Twitter...)
And I don't think the issue is just about whether the item works. I'd pay money to get my old Kaypro back, even if it weren't working (not much money, but some). On the other hand, I wouldn't pay anything for its successor, which if i remember correctly was a Fountain XT computer (a cheap IBM knockoff).
His Mac 128k was already put on for auction, see this slashdot link:
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/0056220/Gene-Roddenberrys-Mac-Plus-Is-Coming-Up-For-Auction?from=rss
I imagine doing some data recovery on the hard drive would yield some pretty interesting results for whoever got the computer.
How do I know this? My best friend worked with Stevenson at Bezos's space venture Blue. (Neither of them are still there.)
San Francisco Photographers
I've started indulging in a life long fantasy of writing and in my writing I've found it almost impossible to write on a (standard) computer. They have FAR too many distractions, even the option of being able to change you font size for me is a distraction ("oh, would it be easier to read on this screen in size 11, no, size 10 it is..."). To have something that you just sit at and fire your thoughts onto, complete with spelling mistakes, missing punctuation and shit sentences and paragraphs, is really liberating. It's what I was wanting to do all along, I didn't want to check spelling, I wanted to tell a story.
When writing I now use a Tandy WP-2 word processor, or "Electronic typewriter" as it's 1989 marketing called it. It cost me £12 (US£20). It's got a daylight reflective 8 by 80 character screen, runs for more than 24 hours on 4xAA batteries and stores around 70 pages with the 128Kb memory upgrade I got it. With it's 5Mhz Z80 processor all you can do with it is type. It works brilliantly, it's so slow that it actually cant insert text at the rate I can type. It drives me to write more and then only when the creative part is done, so it never interrupts, comes the boring part of the editing and spell checking on a full computer.
Before I remembered about the existence of devices like the WP-2 I was quite tempted by the idea of a type writer, with a scanner and OCR software it's not even hard to upload your work to a computer for editing. However on portability alone the A4 sized WP-2 wins, but just encase, I do own an Olivetti as well...
It's really just a question of whether it's a Apple or PC. One lasts till Kingdom Come, the other doesn't ;) ok totally just joking !
Who knows? I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity. And for writers, I don't think it matters what OS you use, although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even matter if you use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen: what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression. Everything else is secondary.
That being said, I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value. For one thing, check out The Guardian's series on writers' rooms. If we're interested in the rooms, I bet we'll be interested in the tools.
This is not only the funniest, but the most correct response in the entire thread. Somebody please chuck mod points at parent until he bursts.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
How much would a collector pay for a (possibly still working) 45 year old computer used by someone semi-notable?
who cares about the computer, it's all about the keyboard.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
I would actually pay more for a computer that for a typewriter, provided that it contains the software and data the author used, except probably some sensitive personal data.
A computer can tell about a person far more than a typewriter.
I can think of plenty of (perfectly sane) people who would happily bid for Douglas Adam's Mac. Especially if the files were left intact - some of them were used in constructing the Salmon of Doubt, the novel he was outlining at the time.
A collector's item only needs to be unique - it doesn't matter what it is, physically. Charlie Chaplin's bowler hat is just the same as any other bowler hat - but worth a lot more.
Neal Stephenson writes with a pen. Why would anyone want to buy his computer? http://www.inkygirl.com/neal-stephenson-writing-and-editing-with-a-fountain-pen/
I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Computer displays are light emiiting devices. This causes eye strain, which harms writer's performance.
What we really need is a pseudo-typewriter, with mechanics and clicks, with a screen made of e-ink (like in e-books) to "print" into. Possible with an additional real paper print output.
Are you people still out there, living in the 18th century?
Writing is hard graft, hard work, sweat ant tears, discipline and method.
Any tool that makes the job easier is a good thing.
Handwriting and typewriters just make the full process of writing a nightmare (the process of writing does not end with the writer himself, unless he just wants to bask in the glory of his forever unknown "talent").
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer.
Consider that computers are (in some sense) universal turing machines, and the set of all turing machines is countably infinite.
Computers don't have "almost infinite uses", they have exactly (countably) infinite uses.
</pedant>
The person who buys this is unlikely to use it, but having a typewriter that was an instrument of creation for famous works is like having a guitar played by Hendrix at Woodstock or a pen used to sign the Declaration of Independence.
This typewriter was used for every single book by the author. Pretty amazing!
Computer/typewriter/inkwell/chisel—it's not what it is, it is who used it and for making what and for how long.
For what it's worth, according to his book In The Beginning... Was the Command Line, Neal Stephenson said he used a BeBox for a while.
He's also used emacs. Personally, I like the idea that anyone can download it for free and be on an equal footing with someone who's used it to write such great novels. Isn't that inspiring?
Stephenson wrote his Baroque cycle on paper long-hand. Most of the early additions had pictures of the reams of paper stacked up next to him. Something like 3 feet tall. Pictures Here.
It's pretty simple: Typewriters have become a fetish. They are unique, durable, and built for a singular purpose. There isn't anything that makes them superior as a writing instrument. People have just idealized and idolized them.
Myself, I prefer my typewriter for writing.
This isn't to say that I never use a computer. I much prefer to edit my work on a computer. Scanning in my drafts and using OCR to convert them to plain-text files is a bit tedious but worth it I think. Emacs is a fantastic editing tool. That is the stage in which I indulge in fussing around with the order of things, correcting typos, and touching up grammar. Computers make that easy and its the part I least enjoy so any tool that makes it easier is okay with me (and bonus if it lets me distract myself with a slashdot break).
It is highly improbable that an author would keep and use the same computer for 20 years. The problem is that a typewriter has a single purpose while computers are general purpose.
Most people who use computers will upgrade their computers after a few years to take advantage of newer technology and capabilities. The odds are very much against an author, especially a successful author, using the same computer for more than two novels.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
some people place value on older-mechanically operated things, ie watches, musicboxes, pianos, etc. this typewriter falls in the same mechanical-antiquity. this is probably because mechanical objects of this sort never change.
that's all i got.
I think the nostalgia for typewriters has loads in common with that for certain other artifacts - steam locomotives, vacuum tube radios, classic/vintage cars etc. Basically, stuff made before around 1970, what I call the culmination of the Industrial Age (man on the moon in '69 was its greatest achievement).
Back then, things were built to last- out of iron and steel, glass and wood. Way before plastics and cheap semiconductor electronics and Moore's law. Take a typewriter, or a rotary telephone or a valve radio- they feel solid and rugged and reliable compared to a laptop, cellphone or mp3 player of today. And they gather value over time as antiques.
Modern technology and miniaturization just doesn't have the same appeal, and thanks to engineered obsolescence, your shiny cellphones, laptops and music players won't last beyond 3-4 years.
Can you imagine, for example, keeping a laptop or an iPod to show your grandkids? We live in the time of super short attention spans, the internet has compounded it further. This will have a continuing impact on our collective culture going forward, as we rely more on electronic devices to produce/store our creative works. Simple case- imagine how hard it is to keep track of your digital life over the years- say old /. or Usenet posts.
So antique typewriters owned by famous writers will definitely have value...no telling whether the laptops or digital tablets of today's creative people will be relevant 30 years hence.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
GOOD LORD WHAT IS A MODEM QM
MY TELETYPE IS HOOKED DIRECTLY TO THE FIBER OPTIC LINE YET I AM ONLY GETTING 45 BAUD STOP
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
So the real appeal of this item is that Cormac McCarthy wrote all of his novels on it. If your a Cormac fan that's very cool. You're buying a piece of history. I'm a big fan of Neal Stephenson, I'd probably pay a lot for the computer on which he wrote all of his novels. Oh wait, there is no such thing. I don't know if he writes on a computer or not but if he does he's probably had at least half a dozen by now. I might be able to get the one he wrote Snow Crash on, but that's nowhere near a cool as Cormac's typewriter. So the real difference is the length of association and all that that implies. That the machine lasted that long; that the writer liked it that well; that there is only one as opposed to a dozen or two. There's some appeal to the tool itself but the real value is in the association with the author. If Neal writes all his stories with the same cheap Mont Blanc pen (unlikely, but hey!) then there's some serious value to that pen.
Considering that Stephenson has written more than a couple of his longer books using a fountain pen, I don't think his desktop or laptop would go for much. Thanks for not even bothering to look that up, though, and just throwing out his name to try and get geek cred.
Nathan's blog
Heh, I have this exact model typewriter (Olivetti Lettera 32) in my loft, in pristine condition (i check on it a couple times a year, wouldnt want it to get rusty/moldy), works fine. Had planned to write a novel on it but turns out my writing skills suck. Wander how much it'd ebay for? Hmz
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.