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?"
Yeah, that's what you get when he's a substituent instead of the main chain. trans-2,3-diCormac McCarthyl-1-butanol.
THAT'S NOTHING STOP I AM TYPING THIS COMMENT ON A 1950'S TELETYPE MACHINE HOOKED UP TO A 256 BAUD MODEM THE SIZE OF A SHOE BOX CRADLING THE TELEPHONE IN AN ACOUSTIC COUPLER STOP
I would buy the typewriter before I would buy an Interwebs-capable machine because there would be a smaller chance of finding someone else's semen in the keyboard.
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.
I agree with your point 100%. Cormac McCarthy should be auctioning off his hand!
Yeah, his last twelve books.
Your brain is not a computer.