Baron Dialectical Notebook

“My contention in this essay is a modest one: the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (425).

            Baron is going to spend this essay talking about the steps various writing technologies take from inception to acceptance.

 

“I asked myself, if humanists aren’t harmful, then what’s the point of being one?” (425).

            One of the many humorous asides by Baron and an instance of his particular, entertaining voice.

 

“Pencil-making processes were from the outset proprietary secrets as closely guarded as any Mackintosh code” (426).

            This is a very apt parallel between two writing technologies that helps the reader to accept the pencil as being, at one time, a cutting edge writing technology.

           

“Plato was one thinker who spoke out strongly against writing, fearing that it would weaken our memories” (426-7).

            It’s hard to imagine that such a learned man could be against writing, especially considering the fact that we are only able to study his teachings through writing. I think a current corollary would be the ill effects texting is having on spelling and grammar.

 

“Both the supporters and the critics of the new communication technologies like to compare them to the good, or bad, old days” (427).

            This reminds me of the “golden age” syndrome, where everyone thinks the generation before them was the best time in which to live.

 

“Surely they walked around all day with a bunch of sharp styluses sticking out of their pocket protectors, and talked of nothing but new ways of making marks on stones” (427).

            I love Baron’s style. Tech geeks get no love.

 

“Doubters could question witnesses, watch their eyes, see whether witnesses sank when thrown bound into a lake” (429).

            Baron brings up one of the reasons people were first resistant to the written word: the difficulty of authenticating a document.

 

“Only when Mackintosh and Windows operating systems allowed users to create on-screen documents that looked and felt like the old, familiar documents they were used to creating on electric typewriters did word processing really become popular” (436).

            Here Baron illustrates how new technologies become accepted—by emulating already accepted forms of writing technologies.

 

“As the old technologies become more automatic and invisible, we find ourselves more concerned with fighting or embracing what’s new” (438).

            Herein lies the fear of new technologies. Something that is so simple as copying and pasting on a word processor seems indispensable to some and frightening to others.

“Literacy has always functioned to divide the haves from have nots, and the problem of access to computers will not be easy to solve” (439).

            This correlates with Brandt’s pattern of social stratification in literacy acquisition. It reminds me of the case study of Dora, whose parents had to save up for a second hand personal computer.

 

“ We have a way of getting so used to writing technologies that we come to think of them as natural rather than technological. We assume that pencils are a natural way to write because they are old—or at least because we have come to think of them as being old” (440).

            “Time heals all” comes to mind here. With age and prolonged exposure comes acceptance.