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.
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
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
Nothing about Steven King's Wang?
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.
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.
Yes, as unique as the next one that came off the assembly line, identical in every way as the former save the serial number.
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
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.
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.
But you can easily remanufacture an existing ink ribbon, OTOH, you cant do the same with a dead hard disk.
Another advantage of the typewriter over the PC: even if both works, a vintage typewriter will always be compatible with today's office supplements (paper), and its easy to extract the data inserted (read the paper with your eyeballs, or OCR it). A 20+ years old PC uses physical media that aren't produced anymore, and its far more difficult to extract the data (old media, connections).
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 find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something. I'm sorry, but you don't shell out the kind of money that this typewriter might be expected to go for in order to buy a tool for writing. You shell out that money in order to have an object whose value is greater than its utility because it has been involved in some kind of event or process of significance. If a person wanted to buy a typewriter for typing, there are many of them still running around, and they can often be found relatively cheaply at estate sales, or on eBay (they seem to be going for $50-$500).
In the same way, there are plenty of collectors out there who would almost certainly be willing to spend a fair chunk of change to get their hands on an Apple 1, a signed Mac II, or something similar. They don't want a tool---they want a piece of history. The functionality of the object is secondary.
Rhapsody in Numbers
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!
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.
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
but in a typewriter, it is that unique hardware that gives a signature output, whereas in the computer the software used for creation is largely homogeneous, hence the appreciation differences between the two overall technologies.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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
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).
you can get ribbons at any office supple store. if not for typewriters, than definitely for dot matrix printers. i just pull the ribbon out of the cartridge and wrap it onto the spool
Not really -- typewriter manufacturing is much less exact than PC manufacturing, and that combined with differences in wear patterns means that even two typewriters of the exact same model, used to type the same text by the same typist, will not produce identical output. Whether you care about those differences is a different question, but they are detectable, which cannot be said of the output of computers.
I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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).