October 2008

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2008.

In a May 2006 essay on the technology and culture website Edge.org, futurist Jaron Lanier called Wikipedia an example of “digital Maoism”–the closest humanity has come to a functioning mob rule.

Lanier was moved to write about Wikipedia because someone kept editing his Wikipedia entry to say that he was a film director. Lanier describes himself as a “computer scientist, composer, visual artist, and author.” He is good at all those things, but he is no director. According to his essay, he made one short experimental film in the 1990s, and it was “awful.”

“I have attempted to retire from directing films in the alternative universe that is the Wikipedia a number of times, but somebody always overrules me,” Lanier wrote. “Every time my Wikipedia entry is corrected, within a day I’m turned into a film director again.”

Since Lanier’s attempted edits to his own Wikipedia entry were based on firsthand knowledge of his own career, he was in direct violation of Wikipedia’s three core policies. He has a point of view; he was writing on the basis of his own original research; and what he wrote couldn’t be verified by following a link to some kind of legitimate, authoritative, and verifiable publication.

_ Simson L Garfinkel in Technology Review for Nov/Dec

Oh and the verifiable publication ought to be (a) online and (b) in English and (c) written from a neutral POV. Avoid the article if you’re trying to give up biting your nails.

Hat tip: Arts and Letters Daily

Tags:

Condorcet rides again

With so much schism and doubt around the place, how good it is to contemplate a credible optimist.

In the NYT, David Pogue interviews E.O. Wilson, the great biologist and unrivalled ant-man, about his new project , nothing less than a complete online descriptive catalogue of every single one of the 1.8 million species so far discovered and named. (There are probably another 8 million still to discover.) Its working title is the Encyclopaedia of Life.

I liked this bit:

The world is full of amateurs: gifted amateurs, devoted amateurs. You can pick almost any group that has any kind of intrinsic interest in it, from dragonflies to pill bugs to orb-weaving spiders. Anybody can pick up information in interesting places, find new species or rediscover what was thought to be a vanished species, or some new biological fact about a species already known, and can provide that right into The Encyclopedia of Life.

These are the successors to those 18th century clergymen who spent their spare time with newts and daisies.

Tags:

There no rules when it came to writing, he said. Take a close look at the lives of poets and novelists, and what you wound up with was unalloyed chaos, an infinite jumble of exceptions. That was because writing was a disease, Tom continued, what you might call an infection or influenza of the spirit, and therefore it could strike anyone at any time. Scan the roster of the giants and semi-giants, and you would discover writers who embraced every sexual proclivity, every political bent, and every human attribute – from the loftiest idealism to the most insidious corruption. They were criminals and lawyers, spies and doctors, soldiers and spinsters, travelers and shut-ins.

_ Paul Auster, The Brooklyn Follies, 2006, 149

Fun to arrange them in cross-temporal couples, using Auster’s characteristics. I’ve matched ‘sexual proclivities’ so that each couple has at least one thing in common, sort of.

Christopher Marlowe and Somerset Maugham

Marcel Proust and Bruce Chatwin

Jean Genet and Henry James

Stendhal and Emily Dickinson

Byron and Beatrix Potter

George Eliot and the Marquis de Sade

D.H. Lawrence and Jane Austen

Rainer Maria Rilke and Germaine Greer

Arnold Bennett and Emily Bronte

Well, you get the idea. No lawyer, though.

Tags:

Prince Charles has been invited to appear on Dr Who, and according to some reports, turned it down. “Miserable swine” said Russell T. Davies, the executive producer and lead writer on the show. The charitable interpret this phrase as a reference to “the Prince’s favourite radio program” – the Goon Show – in which it’s a running gag.

Could be. Then again there does seem to be a feeling around that when the tribunes of the people speak, royals ought to jump. Remember the “rage” when the Queen failed to react to Princess Diana’s death by wailing and keening and rending her garments in Trafalgar Square? The tribunes on that occasion were the editors of the tabloid press. Never mind ‘the Arab street’, knock ‘em in the Old Kent Road.

Then there was the concert to celebrate the Queen’s Golden Jubilee at whose conclusion she shared the stage with a bunch of sweaty rockers. According to Fintan O’Toole (Granta, 79, Autumn 2002) this marks a turning point in the history of the monarchy. Formerly an object of deference, he argues, the Queen has now been re-branded as “a living legend, a fading icon of popular culture”.

You can be the sacred bearer of a nation’s destiny, the anointed embodiment of an immemorial fusion of blood and soil, the spiritual head of the official Protestant church. Or you can appear on stage with Ozzy Osbourne, who bites the heads off live bats. You cannot do both.

Well actually you can. Actually one picks and chooses: the late Princess – notoriously – did so, working the press for her own advantage. In this she proved herself right royal, for that’s royals have done since there was a press to work. Victoria knew what she was about when she knighted Henry Irving.

A naive illusion, this, the pop people supposing they control the controllers, and encouraged by habits of interpretation that have filtered down from ‘cultural criticism’. The world is a text; we do texts – hey, we can do the world. So after the so-called race riots on Sydney’s Cronulla beach a couple of years back, one writer decided that the Australian flag had now been ‘re-coded’ as signifying yobbish racism. Wouldn’t that surprise them down at Rotary? ‘Re-coded’, ‘re-branded’ used in passive constructions, Prince Charles in a cameo, monarchs as pop icons, the flag as fascist banner; these, if anything unequivocal, are signs of absence of mind, of a childish determination to impose one’s wishes on the world.

So as the Daily Mail might say, Put your dummy back in, Russell T.

I had read some pieces by DFW – for one, his piece on John Ziegler in The Atlantic – but not Infinite Jest (1079 pp of which 196 pp of notes) and it was clear from the Ziegler piece alone that here was a seriously interesting and famously depressive writer, and since I take a close and personal interest in how writers deal with their depressions, when he went and resolved his with his pyjama cord on September 12 it felt like the only thing to do was to read the big one. Survivor guilt, guilt-about-not-keeping-up, morbid curiosity about proleptic passages, healthy desire to try to comprehend the brute, mute facticity of the pyjama cord, lastly actual hope that such a huge reputation would prove to be more than the usual puff-bubble.

It is, it is. (Oh thanks say the Wallacians out there, but cut me some aging slack here).

I am trying hard to resist just adding a few paltry adjectives to the cairn on the web. But Infinite Jest is one of those books that make you want while reading it to button-hole people and quote at them, quote something from practically every page, quote whole pages, a pre-critical gushing love affair.

As at 22nd October in the O.N.AN.-ite Year of the Dependable Adult Undergarment, the first appearance of Madame Psychosis with her midnight radio show, which tonight features reading from the come-all-ye brochure of the Union of the Hideously and Improbably Deformed (“Bell-shaped steatopygiacs, in your special slacks”) as at, therefore, a mere p 190 I have become addicted. The 18th century is on hold.

Amongst the many obits online (Google and take your pick) the one that made me desperately want to read Wallace was this one by Scott McLemee, especially this bit:

In one of his last published writings (how terrible it feels to put it that way) David Foster Wallace referred to ?the sound of our U.S. culture right now? as Total Noise: ?a culture and volume of info and spin and rhetoric and context that I know I?m not alone in finding too much to even absorb, much less to try to make sense of or organize into any kind of triage of saliency or value. Such basic absorption, organization, and triage used to be what was required of an educated adult, a.k.a. an informed citizen ? at least that?s what I got taught. Suffice it here to say that the requirements now seem different…. In sum, to really try to be informed and literate today is to feel stupid nearly all the time, and to need help. That?s about as clearly as I can put it.?

He went on to mention, all too briefly, his hope that there might be ?a model for what free, informed adulthood might look like in the context of Total Noise: not just the intelligence to discern one?s own error or stupidity, but the humility to address it, absorb it, and move on and out therefrom, bravely, toward the next revealed error.?

I have been thinking off and on for a long time, not all that productively, about Matthew Arnold’s account of Zerstreutheit (‘being-scattered-ness’ maybe) and how much worse things have become since he wrote and how in particular, to adopt Wallace’s term, the Noise menaces the manic and introverted. Against this background I found what Wallace had to say compellingly accurate and brave. Reading even 190 pages of Infinite Jest shows how deliberately exposed he was to the Noise. I don’t know enough about Wallace and I am old-fashioned about these matters, so I’m not going to connect the dots here but it looks to me as if Wallace’s creative work was, like Samuel Beckett’s, heroic. He resembles Beckett as well in the love and admiration he inspired in those who knew him.

Tags:

? and has he read all those books?

« Older entries

Theme Tweaker by Unreal