In Defense of New Media
The Protestant Reformation happened because of Martin Luther's Ninety-five Theses. The widespread dissemination of this publication ultimately allowed this historical event to take place. And its mass production wouldn't have been possible without the recent invention of moveable type, which allowed lots of copies to be printed at once. And this invention did, unquestionably, change the course of history.
Prior to moveable type, the only way to mass produce copies of a book was to have scribes sitting and copying books by hand. A little later, the printing press was creating, but each page of a book still had to be carved into a stone tablet. The difficulties of the production process kept publication out of the hands of an amateur. If you were going to take the trouble to print a book before, you'd better write something worth reading.
Moveable type changed this. How did Martin Luther feel about the impacts of moveable type of society and culture? Even though the technology enabled him to do something (arguably) great, he recognized the double-edged sword; that is, as the means of production become more accessible to more people, the average quality of what they're producing inevitably goes down. He once said, "The multitude of books is a great evil. There is no measure of limit to this fever for writing; every one must be an author; some out of vanity, to acquire celebrity and raise up a name; others for the sake of mere gain."
In the age of the Internet, does this kind of lamentation sound familiar to you?
It's easy to bemoan the fall in average quality of what's produced, and it's natural to blame the sudden influx of lower quality on the medium itself. But is there a single person alive today who would still say that proliferation of books has been bad for civilization?
Prior to moveable type, the only way to mass produce copies of a book was to have scribes sitting and copying books by hand. A little later, the printing press was creating, but each page of a book still had to be carved into a stone tablet. The difficulties of the production process kept publication out of the hands of an amateur. If you were going to take the trouble to print a book before, you'd better write something worth reading.
Moveable type changed this. How did Martin Luther feel about the impacts of moveable type of society and culture? Even though the technology enabled him to do something (arguably) great, he recognized the double-edged sword; that is, as the means of production become more accessible to more people, the average quality of what they're producing inevitably goes down. He once said, "The multitude of books is a great evil. There is no measure of limit to this fever for writing; every one must be an author; some out of vanity, to acquire celebrity and raise up a name; others for the sake of mere gain."
In the age of the Internet, does this kind of lamentation sound familiar to you?
It's easy to bemoan the fall in average quality of what's produced, and it's natural to blame the sudden influx of lower quality on the medium itself. But is there a single person alive today who would still say that proliferation of books has been bad for civilization?