Archive Fever (Week 5)

The week 4 readings (for week 5 tutorial) revolve around what Jacques Derrida calls 'Archive Fever'. This term has taken on different interpretations but it is commonly regarded to mean a neverending sense of requirement that keeping an archive produces, one which borders on obsession. Several of the authors this week look at this definition and link it to their own experience. The most interesting of these I found was Matthew Ogle's "A love letter to the post real-time web" in which he discusses taking a holiday from the internet, particularly real-time web (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr - websites which, in a sense, archive the now and produce real-time events and results). He took this trip because he couldn't remember a singal day without accessing Twitter. Ogle explains how difficult it was to break away from the shackles of real-time web - a direct example of Derrida's 'Archive Fever'. Furthermore, Ogle explains how when he arrived home, accessing other archives such as email and maps was a quick transition back to normality, while returning to real-time web was more difficult, akin to learning to ride a bike again. The explanation given for this, and I have found it in my other readings as well, is that archive fever has many dimensions. From the librarian who spends their entire work day sorting, checking and archiving materials, to the humble 'Facebooker' who logs two to three mundane events of their day, archive fever can affect anyone and everyone. Ogle's example supports the point that archives are important for recording our very existence. With changing technology, archives have also had to change. It is obvious through the readings, however, that the latter is falling behind. In the past, archives of battles, court findings, medical reports etc. were kept in files or books on shelves, to be accessed relatively easily at any time. Now, with the advent of sites such as Twitter and Facebook, there is a need to prioritise - often at the expense of the past. Real-time web means now. While these sites certainly have the capacity to archive our thoughts, movements and beliefs of a particular time (e.g. March 2008), we as basic archivists do not have the same capacity to find them at a later date. It is difficult without programming nous to find out what I was doing on the 22nd April 2010, although it was almost certainly recorded on Facebook. And therein lies the changing nature of Archive Fever. Whereas in the past it was perhaps about the obsession with accessing history and keeping records of current events stowed away for future reference, today archive fever is more about recording what is happening at this infinitesimal moment. And then again in five minutes when my new laptop arrives. Then in 15 minutes when I can't understand how the laptop works...

Actor-Network Theory

The week four readings look at Actor-Network Theory and its many criticisms. The ANT explains a series of connections between actors that make up a network. Interactions between these actors and any external actors or networks links them as well. Actor-Network Theory is a way of looking at how relationships are formed between actors in all walks of life. It could be used to explain ecosystems, management structures or publishing practices. It is a very general theory which allows for a massive flexibility. It can include thousands and thousands of nodes in a network, or as few as just two.

The theory also suggests that all actors in the network are equal. The actors, human or non-human, all have the same importance to the network and if one is removed or displaced, it affects the entire network and changes its dynamics.

The ANT has been acclaimed as a great method of better understanding the millions of networks and micro-networks that exist in society and nature. Using the ANT, one can gain a good understanding of how many systems operate through the existence of networks of components. In a publics and publishing sense, broad processes like publishing a book can be broken down by ANT and explained. Non-human and human actors include the printing press, computer, keys, paper, ink, publisher, author and publishing house. Semiotics could be the idea for the book, intended audience, appealing features of the writing etc. These facets are all linked in the network and each play a part in the publishing of the book. They could be seen as being equal parts.

The criticism of this theory is that it does treat all actors as equal. Using the same example as above, it seems like all actors are equal in that system, but some criticism suggests that there are actors more important within the network than others. For example, a pen might be included as an actor in the network. It is important to publishing a book, but is it as important as the author? Or the publisher?

Week 3 readings

The readings this week deal with the process of publishing and how it differs from formal publishing practices to Web 2.0 and more informal ways of publishing our own material like on Twitter and Facebook. The other readings look at the proposed metering of online content with particular reference to the New York Times.

I found the publishing house websites very interesting as I didn't realise how strict and formal the procedures were for sending a preliminary idea for publication. Before the publishers can even accept the piece, they must be sent all sorts of information including the genre, the intended audience and other details. As we can gather from the later readings, the processes for publishing formally against those for publishing on the web for example are as different as the final product.

To use Charlie Brooker's brilliant Youtube video as an example, the freedom Youtube and other Web 2.0 sites allow potential publishers is vast. Here, Brooker uses the self-publishing site to present a satirical news story, explaining step by step how inane news stories are created. He has used the website as an outlet for a creative, and in many ways educational, video about media practices.

However, an issue is raised concerning how much freedom Web 2.0 allows. Quite often, it is a great tool for creative minds who might have trouble getting past the red tape of a big time publishing house. Blog sites like the Huffington Post are an example of where strict bureaucratic guidelines have been subverted to bring news and views to the people. But sometimes too much freedom can be a bad thing. An example is seen in neo-Nazi groups and extreme religious organisations who, through Web 2.0, have a platform for their radical, and often unwanted, views. These views can easily offend and even create legal issues and Web 2.0 unfortunately fosters their publication where a publishing house would almost certainly refuse to accept them.

Week 2 readings

The readings this week briefly summarise the history of publishing and printing from its early beginnings in different cultures - reaching back as early as 3000 BC - to the innovations of the revolutionary iPad and Amazon Kindle. The articles provided also give an insight into the various issues mainly with the iPad and how it is changing the way we consume books and other publications.

The Wikipedia articles are a great way of getting a general knowledge of the subject of publishing and printing through some short reading. The page on publishing looks at the step by step process of having a work published including royalty negotiation, design and distribution. Then it goes on to talk about the industry sub-divisions of publishing - newspapers, books and tie-in publishing, for example. Wikipedia constantly comes under scrutiny for its ability to be edited by anyone, but in these cases it is a very handy tool for laying a foundation of understanding.

The second bulk of articles relate to the iPad, Kindle and other forms of what is known as eReading. The articles focus on the 'future of reading' and how these innovations are revolutionising the way books, newspapers and academic works are being both produced and consumed. A common theme amongst the articles is that there is not only competition between the old and new forms of reading, but also a seemingly predatory approach into the market by products like the Kindle and the iPad. John Naughton likens the restrictions placed on the reader by Amazon to George Orwell's classic Nineteen Eighty-Four. The National Public Radio transcript talks of certain benefits of the traditional book that "there is no way you could replicate with an e-book"

This adversarial stance is seen in nearly all of the articles in this week's readings and presents an intriguing version of a much publicised battle for supremacy.