The End of Books by Uzanne and Robida

Albert Robida was a 19th century French artist and writer of satirical science fiction. I first heard of him last year when I read about him in Maggie Jackson's Distracted. Jackson described some of Robida's surprisingly accurate predictions from his 1882 novel The Twentieth Century, which is the only work of his that's currently in print in English translation. Robida was a contemporary of Jules Verne but is much less known today, at least in the English-speaking world.

I was searching for more information on Robida and came across a short story from 1894 called The End of Books, written by Octave Uzanne and illustrated by Robida. It's a pretty amusing read in light of the ever-present fretting over the death of books, the threat of audio books (see Kindle), and the invention of things called "video books" (see Jeff Jarvis). Uzanne and Robida predict (and to my ears make fun of) this very same stuff. Below is one of Robida's illustrations of a future reader, enjoying a book the modern way — by listening to and viewing it.

Links to the story and related material:

  • The University of Adelaide has an English translation: The End of Books.
  • An excellent summary of the story in English by Michael Ward, with links to the French text and illustrations: abstract.
  • Gutenberg has the French text and illustrations: Robida. (They have a link to a supposed English version but it's actually the French.)
  • An article by Edward Tenner about Robida: "World Greatest Futurist" (see the pdf).


Carr on Shirky and Gilligan’s Web

Nicholas Carr has posted a fine critique of Clay Shirky’s "Gin, Television and the Social Surplus" talk/theory (see earlier post for context) on his blog.  Excerpt:

Did my friends and I watch Gilligan’s Island? You bet your ass we did –
and thoroughly enjoyed it (though with a bit more ironic distance than
Shirky allows). Watching sitcoms and the other drek served up by the
boob tube was certainly part of our lives. But it was not the center of
our lives. Most of the people I knew were doing a whole lot of
"participating," "producing," and "sharing," and, to boot, they were
doing it not only in the symbolic sphere of the media but in the actual
physical world as well. They were making 8-millimeter films, playing
drums and guitars and saxophones in bands, composing songs, writing
poems and stories, painting pictures, making woodblock prints, taking
and developing photographs, drawing comics, souping up cars,
constructing elaborate model railroads, reading great books and
watching great movies and discussing them passionately well into the
night, volunteering in political campaigns, protesting for various
causes, and on and on and on. I’m sorry, but nobody was stuck, like
some pathetic shred of waterborne trash, in a single media-regulated

Link: Gilligan’s Web.

TV, Cognitive Surplus, and Wikipedia

This past weekend Clay Shirky posted a transcript of a talk he gave called Gin, Television, and Social Surplus that’s been getting a lot of links around the blogosphere.  Following on themes from his book, Here Comes Everybody, he tells a story that goes like this: We gained lots of free time (a “cognitive surplus”) in the 40s and 50s because of shorter workweeks.  We squandered the surplus by watching TV sitcoms and the like.  Now we’re finally waking up from this “collective bender” and putting our energies into better things, like editing Wikipedia.

I have a number of problems with this story.  First of all, did we gain free time in the 40s and 50s?  I’m not an expert, but what I’ve read about work life has said that Americans are working more hours now than they did at the beginning of the 20th century, not less.

Second, is the time now spent editing Wikipedia or doing other things online really coming from time formerly spent watching TV?  In other words, even if there’s a negative correlation between TV viewing and online activity, correlation doesn’t imply causality.

Third, who’s to say which of these activities is more valuable?  Shirky has a couple of fairly simple rules for assigning value.  Producing is better than consuming — so writing a blog or posting to a mailing list is better than watching TV or reading.  Activity is better than inactivity or passivity — playing World of Warcraft is more valuable than watching a movie.

I think those rules are awfully simplistic and don’t seem to get at the heart of what’s valuable.  Some TV shows and movies are far more sophisticated works of art than are most video games.  Reading a book can be a much more efficient way to deepen one’s understanding of a topic than debating it online.  Even an adolescence wasted watching Gilligan’s Island (an example of Shirky’s) might reward you later with the creative juice to launch a career writing postmodern novels.

It’s wishful thinking to believe that all of these new technologies will bring forth some great creative and intellectual bounty.  We’ve already got hundreds of millions of blogs — how much have they really changed things?  How important is Wikipedia, really? If it disappeared tomorrow would anyone be truly inconvenienced?  I doubt it — Google would turn up another source or you’d go look in the library if it really mattered.  Yet think of all the energy and hours that have been put into Wikipedia.  The return on investment just doesn’t seem that impressive.

Book (and TV) Notes

Clay Shirky’s new book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations is about the power of the social web or web 2.0 or whatever you like to call it.  It’s getting a lot of positive coverage.  I just received a review copy and I’ll post some notes once I’ve read it.

IpodandphilosophyBook series about philosophy and pop culture seem to be multiplying.  Open Court was the first publisher to take up the idea, I believe, followed by Blackwell.  I’ve yet to actually read any of these books, but that may change.  The forthcoming iPod and Philosophy (Fall ’08) looks very good.  I may also check out The Office and Philosophy too, just because I like the show and I’m baffled as to where they’re finding philosophy in it.  Both publishers are releasing books on Battlestar Gallactica and Philosophy (Blackwell, OpenCourt), which seems like overkill.  It’s a good show but not quite as deep as all the hype suggests, in my humble opinion.

Another publisher that puts out similar books is Benbella.  Their titles include The Science of Dune and The Science of Michael Crichton.

A show that none of these publishers has yet tackled is the SciFi channel’s Eureka.  It may not be popular enough (though surely it’s more current than Dune) and it is far from deep, but it rehashes just about every cliche about science and scientists you can imagine.  I’m slightly  embarrassed to admit I watch it.  The back story of the show is here: A (Confidential) Town History.  They also have a page of futuristic gadgets that exist only in this fictional town: Made in Eureka.