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?"

Comments

Let's put this in perspective

[coppro]

How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?

I rest my case.

Yes

[DreamsAreOkToo]

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.

Re:Yes

[Raptor851]

Hmm, I'd say that's more of a recent phenomena though. While it's true the working life of my recent computers is 4-5 years at most. (lower if it ever had HP, Compaq, or Sony, written on it), my Commodore, one of my friend's mac classics, and other older machines never died, just stopped being used as much. (mostly brought out just to mess with now), hell, as a more recent example, my Thinkpad was built in 2000 and is still my primary laptop today, and gets used more than any other computer I own. Works as well as the day it was built. (though thinkpads were a long standing exception, most everything was cheap throwaway junk by around 1995). This is irrelevant to my main point however :)

Junk or not though, whether it works is generally irrelevant for a collector of such things. Your points about a typewriter are just as valid to a well built computer, and the durability issue pointed out just as relevant to a cheap typewriter. (I'm old enough to have written school papers on typewriters, and yes, a lot of them were junk that broke after 3-4 years). The only real value is who owned it previously, it doesn't matter if it's a $0.02 BIC pen used to write a popular book, it still gains that perceived value.

just my 0.02 cents

don't think it's mechanical v. digital

[Trepidity]

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.

Mechanical Marvels

[MBCook]

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.

Symbolism for Writing

[Taur0]

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.