Interesting reading

  • Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0, on how newspapers still don’t get the Web, as shown through The Washington Post’s coverage of a weather story.
  • Neil Hallows of the BBC on how some writers prefer the typewriter over the computer.
  • BoingBoing, on how a spoof of Google puts a happier spin on the news ā€” a new definition of search engine optimization.
About these ads

2 thoughts on “Interesting reading

  1. Thanks for linking to the typewriter story.

    I was born in 1980. I learned to use a computer when I was seven. Years later, my high school typing teacher made us practice on typewriters once a week, but the rest of the time was spent on computers. So, although I have a passing familiarity with typewriters, they’ve always seemed more quaint than useful.

    They’ve also seemed intimidating. Whenever older friends or relatives talk about their typewriter days — how whole pages had to be retyped because of one misspelled word, how incorporating footnotes into a document was akin to conducting open heart surgery — it makes me wonder how anything ever got written, much less published.

    On the other hand, I can relate to Richard Plot’s complaint that it’s so easy to “dither” on a computer — changing words, rearranging paragraphs, skipping over to the Internet — that a writer can waste a lot of time. This quote of his makes me think that using a typewriter may not be the worst thing in the world:

    “I didn’t compose most of the book on a typewriter, but every once in a while I would put out a few pages on a typewriter, a first draft, and it was kind of refreshing.”

    I’m tempted to skip over to eBay and bid on one.

  2. Editrix,

    Glad you enjoyed the link.

    I was enrolled in a typing class in 1980. I was 13 years old, and my junior high school had one computer, located in the library.

Comments are closed.