Cannot Be Digitized #3: G for Graffiti

In one of the more compelling scenes of Alan Moore and David Lloyd's V for Vendetta, Evey Hammond has been captured by security forces (who turn out to be V himself) and is tortured all in the name of her confessing her "coercion" at the hands of, as they say, the terrorist "Codename V."  Of course, V is the one responsible for her torture, and he does so in an attempt to "set her free" from what he sees as the prison of her daily life.  In her cell, Evey discovers the brief account of a woman named Valerie scrawled in pencil on a piece of rolled up toilet paper.  Valerie's story is just like so many other stories of victims in the comic: she is arbitrarily incarcerated for being homosexual and is executed because she refuses to admit that there is anything wrong with her psychologically.  The authenticity of the text is dubious; the only other text to play a prominent role in the narrative, the diary of Delia Surridge in which V's "history" is recounted, is called out by Detective Finch as a possible forgery on the part of V to disguise his true motives.  Of course, its authenticity does not matter.  What does matter is where Evey finds it and how: in her cell as she undergoes the very same torture and deprivation Valerie did.

Many years ago, when I was but a fresh, [not-so-]young graduate student, I tried to make the argument that there is something fundamentally unique about bathroom graffiti as a text in process, in constant process of production as well as erasure.  Suffice it to say, my argument, whatever its relative faults or merits may have been, did not impress a certain professor of media studies at our fine university, for which I received a rather disappointing B+ (which is Graduate-School-Grade for "what is this charlatan even doing here?").  She and I did not see eye to eye.

In that paper, I was trying to make a point about context, both about the context of the recent Supreme Court decision that had invalidated the university's admittance procedures and about the physical context of the bathroom stall in which the "texts" under analysis were found.  At the time I set up a (in hindsight) rather problematic dichotomy between public and private texts, the irony being that private texts were the print (and not quite print) materials you carry about and consume largely on your own and that public texts were something read while, ahem, in the privy.  I had wanted to argue that public texts transgress accepted norms of textuality by both inviting participation in the creation of said text--bathroom graffiti shows clear signs of having been written by numerous, distinct hands--and by locating this text in a peculiar space that is at once public (i.e. ideally accessible to all) and private (it segregates men from women, the defecating from the not, etc.).  But there was something missing in this argument that I would take myself to task for now and perhaps should have been by the aforementioned professor of media studies but was not.

I focused too much on that specific place, the ground floor men's bathroom in Mason Hall at the University of Michigan, and not enough on the larger problem of the unportability of a text.  What does it mean to "have to have been there" when it comes to reading?  Two years ago, I found the following quatrain written in a single long line along the far wall of the third stall on the left of the very same men's bathroom.

Je suis belle, ô mortels! comme un rêve de pierre,
Et mon sein, où chacun s'est meurtri tour à tour,
Est fait pour inspirer au poète un amour
Eternel et muet ainsi que la matière.

I am fair, O mortals! like a dream carved in stone,
And my breast where each one in turn has bruised himself
Is made to inspire in the poet a love
As eternal and silent as matter.

[Charles Baudelaire, "La Beauté," Les Fleurs du Mal, trans. William Aggeler]

I made a futile attempt to digitize this text for myself with the small digital camera I had with me in my bag when I was doing my, ahem, business.  I say futile, because given how the quatrain was written in a single line spanning the breadth of the wall, it was impossible to get far enough back within the stall to allow for sufficient focal distance as to capture the text in toto in one go.  In the end, I broke the text up into several images, which, ironically, do not survive outside my memory of them.  You could go there now, but some other text has taken its place, because the powers that be attempt regularly to cleanse bathrooms of any undesirable notions.  What I realize now is that there is a flip side to the rhetoric of digitization as preservation.  The extreme portability of digital documents (and likewise of their physical precursors) is precisely what makes them less subject to the caprices of environment.  This is likely obvious (and suspect) to anyone with half a brain.  However, what is less obvious is how this reflects on texts tied inextricably to a single place: while they may be subject to the whims of administrators and custodial staff who regularly efface them, even the most rehashed story, like "Valerie's" above, or poem can acquire what is meaningful about a particular place simply by being attached to it.  Then, even if it is erased (and it will be), our memories do something for it, to preserve it, just like Evey's above and mine below.

Apples and Orangutans

There's an interesting opinion piece in today's NY Times about the relative environmental impact of a "book" and an "e-reader."  It brings to bear something I think is crucial in the ongoing debate about the future of books, particularly when the issue is taken up in the popular press: we're still asking the wrong questions.  In "How Green Is My iPad," Goleman and Norris replicate one of the fundamental analogic problems that plague discussions of digital texts, namely the assumption that there is sufficient similarity between "analog" and "digital" documents to perform a one to one comparison.

In order to make the (relatively useless) comparison, digital documents are generally concretized in some fashion.  In the case of the above op-ed piece, digital texts are represented by their access technology with particular emphasis on Amazon's Kindle and Apple's iPad.  My first objection to the inclusion of the iPad is wisely accounted for by the authors; they only focus on those aspects of the technology related to digital text and largely ignore its other, broader functions.  The article then goes through and details the environmental impact of of a generic "book" and a generic "e-reader" in five key categories (materials, manufacture, transportation, reading, and disposal) two of which (transportation and reading) are so widely variable as to render the analysis all but moot.  It also fails to acknowledge the nature of the impact costs of the two objects.  With a "book," whatever that may be, the costs are largely determined and sunk by the time the object reaches your possession.  Its only ongoing costs are storage and, perhaps, patience.  But the costs of maintaining and using an "e-reader," whatever that may be, are theoretically infinite and persist long after the device in question finds its way to your hands.  I'm also somewhat baffled by the assertion that "[i]f you like to read a book in bed at night for an hour or two, the light bulb will use more energy than it takes to charge an e-reader, which has a highly energy-efficient screen."  E-ink displays are not backlit.  In fact, they're designed not to be backlit so as to reduce eyestrain.  In other words, the "light on before bed" applies even to the high-efficiency display.

Which brings me to what I think is the fundamental myopia of this type of analog-digital comparison: we're not talking about commensurable things.  I've said this in so many different ways before, but let me be clear.  A digital text is of a different kind.  Digital objects (files, web environments, self-perpetuating algorithms, etc.) are a different kind of thing, one which challenges what it is we mean by a thing when we use that word.  My suspicion is that in popular discourse, things remain woefully concrete, much to the detriment of those of us (i.e. nearly everyone) who must negotiate the veil between our analog and digital pasts and our analog and digital futures.  What this means for the present discussion is the false (and all too common) assumption of the null impact of the digital text itself, the so-called e-book, when, in fact, an elaborate, expensive, and fragile technological infrastructure is required merely to make digital objects persist in a way the "book" takes for granted simply by virtue of being a physical object.  That environmental impact goes largely ignored, and it is the ignorant valorization of the "digital future" by the political and economic powers that be that blinds popular discourses to the very real problems that plague digital information itself (portability, backwards compatibility, access, etc.).

It is the very same ignorance that leads Goleman and Norris to conclude, "[a]ll in all, the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library."  I wonder if they are even aware of what is happening to the coffee sho--I mean public libraries (both collegiate and municipal) whose stacks are being gutted in favor of a more services-oriented system where libraries function less as book warehouses and more as study spaces, access points, reference assistance, and so forth.  The "virtuous reader" may very well be surprised by what she finds in a public library even five years from now.  I wonder if she will be surpised to find that our libraries are in fact the vanguard of those who perpetuate the ignorance enumerated above and not bulwarks guarding the lingering presence of the past against the imagined dictates of the future.

[now that I've made my over-the-top, sweeping generalization]

It amazes me how often people are removed from these discussions: the people who staff libraries, the people who maintain servers (and server farms), the people who design access software and devices with the noblest of intentions, the people who write, and the people who read.  We've become so obsessed with objects that perhaps for awhile we should set objects aside and think about the impact on ourselves physically, emotionally, intellectually, and so forth.  After all, what are we doing this for if not for ourselves?

Whose Text is it Anyway?

Welcome!  There are two of us creating Libral Thinking and so with a second voice, the second post commences. I, Colleen, am currently a graduate student in the School of Information, and I am working "in the field" as it were, both sitting at a reference desk, and answering patrons' questions through a chat program on the internet.  I hope to be able to add some insights into the practical and professional side of the messy nature of working in collections at this uneasy "transition" time.  (Is it a transition?  Will we keep the books?  --questions for another time.)  For today I take up the topic of the uneasy relationship for the text and the institution created in the space between the physical book on the shelf in a collection and a digitized version (copy?) on the web with access provided through Google Books.

To use Google Books, a person must type "Google" into a browser of some sort.  Each page of the book scanned by Google bears their mark, seen to the left.  It is fairly clear that it is a document scanned and provided by Google, presented by Google through their interface (and their copyright settlement).

Yet, there is a tricky problem:  The same text is marked very clearly with the institution where a physical copy (at one point?) was housed.  In the case of Essays of an Ex-Librarian by Richard Garnett, 1901, it bears a large bookplate identifying the University of Michigan. 

As a "remote reference librarian" I sit in my living room answering questions that pop-up through chat programs from patrons typing on the library website. I have already fielded multiple questions from patrons around the world asking questions resembling the following:

Patron:  Page 193 is blurry, can you scan it for me and e-mail it?
Me:  There is a button in Google's interface to report the page unreadable.
Patron: Come on...It's just a page. Can't you go get it?  At least read it to me?
Me:   No.
Patron:  Pretty please?
Me:  No, but you can request the book through Inter-Library Loan.
Patron:  But, it's just a page, and I'm in Poland.  That would take a month and I'd have to pay.
Me:  No.

Okay, okay, some of that is a lie already.  In fact, I have, on my own time, requested books to be brought over from the Buhr storage library on my own account, and I have photographed the requested page with my own digital camera and e-mailed the photo to the patron.  There is no policy for handling such requests since they are not frequent enough as of yet to be a problem.  In general, our affiliated patrons come first, but with any time left I can choose to help.

What should the response be to these types of questions?  Whose text is it when the digital scan belongs to a company providing access, but yet it never loses its association with its referent, physically housed in another place, but containing the same content?  The combination creates a lot of assumptions.  The person typing usually assumes that I am in the library, that the book still exists in the library, that it is a few feet away from me, and that it will "just take a minute."  They also assume that it is our (my) responsibility to help them, and not Google.  Maybe that is a good thing?  The library is seen as more available, and helpful than Google. The physical item in this case is more accessible since a bad scan cannot be re-scanned.

But, what do I do though when there are three other chat windows open simultaneously and it's the second Google verification request of my shift?  As the face of a "public" research university, who is my patron?  Should I have levels?  Shouldn't the students come first?  How does a local or state institution fund reference services for a public that through those bookplates and our availability on the web becomes a global audience?    Does the whole library become a reference for the digital in that we should make plans duplication charges like for a closed-stack special library?  Are physical books now a "Special Collection" in relation to the digital?

These questions cannot just remain fuzzy since the digitized texts constitute the memory of our culture.  In some sense we all own them since the memories in the texts lie in the spaces between people, sustained by references to the texts each time we read one, think about it, and add it to our store of knowledge that we share with others as we live and chat over coffee.  For now (most of) the physical books that Google references remain in the libraries, but many people unable to see the blurry details behind "the cloud" call for the practical destruction or selling-off of the books and their pricy buildings and air-conditioning as a practical necessity, not seeing the physical servers, fiber optic cable, and software with quick obsolescence upon which a digitized collection such as Google Books collection relies.  We must define our relationship, and take ownership and responsibility for it, or just like the stack of corroded 51/4 inch floppy disks that hold the games my father programmed for me that sit next to a failed Commodore PET disk drive in my closet, the entirety of our cultural memory could become inaccessible while we pay attention to shinier things.