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?"
But in the proud words of Burkowski from the Captain is out to lunch and the sailors have taken over the ship...
I walked up and sat at the computer. It's my new consoler. My writing has doubled in power and output since I have gotten it. It's a magic thing. I sit in front of it like most people sit in front of their tv sets.
"It's only a glorified typewriter," my son-in-law told me once.
But he isn't a writer. He doesn't know what it is when words bite into space, flash into light, when the thoughts that come into the head can be followed at once by words, which encourages more thoughts and more words to follow. With a typewriter it's like walking through mud. With a computer, it's ice skating. It's a blazing blast. Of course, if there's nothing inside you, it doesn't matter. And then there's the clean-up work, the corrections. Hell, I used to have to write everyhing twice. The first time to get it down and the second time to correct the errors and fuckups. This way, it's one run for the fun, the glory and the escape.
You sound like a wanna be poet living in his mothers basement.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I actually write (words, not code), partially for a living. I do all of my writing longhand at first. Then when I fire up the computer, I am already in my second of countless drafts, all edited on paper first by hand.
I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school. There's no way you could drag me back to those days. They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc. Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.
There's no point in idealizing the creative process, or in claiming typewriters - pure technology, if only mechanical - are superior. They're tools, and in good hands, good things result. In bad hands, bad things result.
That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.
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.
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.
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.
Painfully true. Restoring old computers is incredibly difficult. The sad thing about the Computer Museum in Silicon Valley is that almost nothing works. They've succeeded in restoring two IBM 1401 computers, but they had several of the original design team available. None of the their early personal computers are displayed as working devices.
On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, working. I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds. Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt, and can run for decades if properly maintained. All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling. All the metal is high quality steel. The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick. And the machine has over 500 oiling points, ranging from a dozen oil reservoirs with spring-loaded caps to hundreds of points that just need a drop of oil.
Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though. Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good. Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age. Early low-end wiring materials didn't last. Early plastics became brittle with age. Those gadgets were discarded long ago. The ones still around are the good ones.
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).