As shown in my previous post, one of my current writing projects depends heavily on digital technology.
My other main project is unbesmirched by digits. I'm assembling a collection of aphoristic thoughts on remembering. They began as reflections in my handwritten journals over the last several years.
I reread my journals and selected entries that I wanted to include in this book. For each entry, I typed a heading on a page, noting on which journal and page the entries appeared.
Now I'm using my old friend, the 1937 Remington Noiseless Model Seven, to turn handwritten journal entries into typewritten text. I revise and rethink as I go.
There's still a lot of writing and rewriting left to do. I'll be marking up these typewritten pages, retyping some of them, removing pages, inserting new ones, generating new thoughts as I go.
First, I just enjoy working on paper. It's a break from the frantic, edgy mood of digital composition.
Also, the difference between human and machine memory is one topic I'm writing about, and in order to do justice to human memory it seems appropriate to sink into a purely non-computerized way of recalling and thinking. It helps to turn inwards. (That's what the German word for memory, Erinnerung, literally means.)
This process is inefficient. These thoughts have collected over years, and gathering them into a book is also taking years. That's all right. It's the process of gathering that is most meaningful to me, not the finished product (which maybe no one will want to publish anyway). As I've been saying recently, computers will never catch up to humans because they're not slow enough. Time means nothing to a machine—it's just a measure of how efficiently it produces its output. But for humans, as Kierkegaard puts it, "the time itself is the task." I could ask AI to produce a book about memory, and it would spit it out in seconds. Maybe it would even contain text that would be thought-provoking and meaningful to readers—but not to the computer. And not to me.
As the digitization of the world continues to accelerate, I believe seemingly absurd projects like mine will become ever more important. We need moments, spaces, and activities that can't be reduced to the efficient processing of information.
You've given me a good idea for my next post, Bob! I have a few of those "Scrooge" notebooks too.
ReplyDeleteGreat to see the practice of keeping a commonplace book still in use. Interesting idea to commonplace your own thoughts primarily, rather than other people's, as a method of reflection (And thank you for the literal translation of Erinnerung - I think that exactly captures it).
ReplyDeleteEndorsed. The slow, granular, discover-as-you-go human method.
ReplyDeleteYour idea of time really strikes home for me. I've been a (near) daily diarist for over ten years now - longer than Pepys himself! And all that time, I cling to the hope that my writings will be of interest to others some day. My life may be dull and hum-drum, but I've always said that in 400 years, even accounts of commonplace lives will be of interest to more modern humans. (That said, Pepys had accounts of his dealings with English aristocracy and the Great Fire of London. I have accounts of a global pandemic, and tumultuous American politics). So hopefully, time will impart value to my writings, if we wait long enough.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm confident they will survive. I write in Paperblanks journals (Ultra - 7"x9" sized) which are well made with quality paper. I use a fountain pen with archival Noodlers inks. Given a little care, my writing should survive long enough to gain some value.
Good for you! I'm sure you are right that time increases the value and interest of a diary. I have tried to be a purist about my journals, by considering them only as my own thoughts for myself, but inevitably I start to think about who else might eventually read them, and the thought of destroying them is sad ... and here I am preparing extracts for possible publication. Even Kafka didn't have the nerve to burn his manuscripts himself.
DeleteI stopped writing by hand long ago, since my type speed increased enough to prefer typewriters and computers instead (2008). And, also, because it's painful for me (I draw for a living, and it has become hard to do too). :(
ReplyDeleteBut... Working with paper on paper itself is not inefficient. It's just slower, but you can write out correction on text in a more tangible way, and doing things you'd never be able to do with a computer, but that you could do even with an electronic typewriter (the fancy ones with screens attached or attachable to them), believe it or not. :D
I have generated at least 3 thousands of typewritten literature and, although it's not as clearly organized as your material, I find myself pretty comfortable with working that way with my own literary creations. :D
Your typewriters are utter fanciness, by the way. :D
I wish mine (Olympia SG-3) looked like them... It's a great machine (literally, it's giant), and I love how it smells and vibrates every time I type on it, but... I must acknowledge US and European typewriters are that of a fancier design. xD