In the last chapter of An Introduction to Book History, David
Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery bring up some thought-provoking points about
the future of the book. To me, the
most interesting aspect they talk about is “the idea of ‘revolution’ in the new
media…sense that they have somehow liberated information as opposed to the
book’s control and restriction of it”(121). This is not something that has ever occurred to me as
relating to the book. In the news
recently, I have seen the power of Facebook and Twitter in helping to spur
revolution and political change.
Self publishing relates to this statement, but the only major success of
self-publishing, Fifty Shades of Grey,
is not something that seems to have been liberated. Many publishers publish this genre so it is not something
that has never been seen before that was being held back from the public. I do think that the Internet has
allowed for many more people to get their thoughts through writing out to the
public. The book mentions China—
they are known for limiting Internet access to their citizens because of the
change and unrest it is known to cause.
They also bring up the issue of the
public “underestimates the need for some sort of validation of information”
(122). This relates to the
publisher’s role of the gatekeeper.
For novels, this role can entail fact checking and making sure thye are well-written. This role of validation on the Internet
has many different factors. As
many students know, the example of Wikipedia shows the need to check the actual
truthfulness of information.
Teachers dislike Wikipedia because the information is not known to go
through one of these gatekeepers and can be posted by anyone. The Internet allows people to put on a
completely different face and pretend to be someone else. There is no way of knowing the truth of
the person behind the posting.
Also, the Internet has been great in allowing many to get their voice
out to the public, but this has caused an overload of feedback and writings
available. It is becoming harder
and harder to determine what will be most useful for you and where to find it.
Hey McKenzie!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you—it is often very difficult nowadays to know what on the Internet is trustworthy or not! I (as well as many other people) find the Internet to be incredibly handy for finding information about endless topics and for answering queries about endless predicaments. The information gained can be taken as “truth,” at least in my opinion, if it is confirmed by several successive Google hits, but often this only applies to a well-known topic or black-and-white sort of question. If you’re searching for something more controversial, who knows what you will find, and who knows how much of it is accurate? For example, both in the past and more recently, I have needed to do some research into the Obamacare (or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on your feelings towards the subject) legislation. I have found it difficult to find objective information on the topic. Even sites that advertise a “non-biased” assessment of Obamacare provide information that seems incredibly one-sided. Searching for keywords associated with this topic brings up a range of hits, and many of them are not objective, but are written by a single individual commenting on their interpretation of the legislation’s effects. While sometimes it is helpful to understand people’s opinions of the law, at other times I would just rather know what the law actually is! During my years as a student, I have been trained to critically assess where my information is coming from, and I see this as incredibly valuable. I agree with the quote you included that indicates how many of today’s readers do not think that a “validation” of information is necessary—yet I also find this frightening. The Internet is a giant, and potentially helpful, pool of information, but the benefits of such technology do require some sort of quality-control “gatekeeper” that does not yet exist in digital form—currently it requires us as readers to engage our brains and evaluate the merits of our Internet sources.