The Beauty of Inefficiency

There’s been a lot of advance mourning for the book this year. Each article that touches on digital books is required to include a quote that declaims the loss of the physical, the feel, look, and smell of the bound object.

Many of my favorite things in life are the byproducts of inefficiency. After all, greatness is more often than not the result of a monumental effort – it’s not very fun to celebrate something that comes easy. The erector set intricacy of the Eiffel Tower, the ornate oak cases of old radios, cowboys, the apollo missions – things that require a colossal effort get more recognition. Eventually they’re all replaced by systems underlaid with massive engineering but relatively simple, reliable and easy on the surface – office towers, transistors, cattle cars, communications satellites. The new might outperform but it can’t precede. This is the center of Not Building Things Like They Used To. At the same time, the newest and most far reaching technologies – our current moonshots – are generally either so miniature or so esoteric that they are hard to appreciate. It’s easy to equate the Saturn V as a 20th Century Parthenon, but the CERN supercollidor and carbon nanotubes don’t capture the imagination quite as directly.

There’s a similar process at work in our daily lives. The wonderful inefficiency of a butcher and greengrocer versus a supermarket. Freeways supplanting the old route system. The disappearance of phone booths as a public icon. It’s impossible to predetermine nostalgic appreciation – facebook? iphones? – but I can’t help but feel that things are moving quickly enough now that there’s not enough time for a system to become ubiquitous enough to be missed. Nostalgia has been replaced by retro. Mind you, I’m not really complaining.

Where this all comes to a head with me is that I really, really like bookstores. I like second hand shops, independents, big box megabooklands, you name it. And even if you give the physical object some longevity, it’s pretty clear to me that within the next decade I won’t be getting the majority of my published reading material out of a physical store.

Mind you, I’m already an e-reading convert. I fully realize the advantages of a tagged, hypertextual library, and I’m looking forward to it. The real problem is that browsing or shopping for things in a virtual setting doesn’t hold a torch to walking around a room. Granted, it’s massively more efficient – no need to amass piles of paper and plastic and array them around a large space on shelves, statically organized and gathering dust. If you know what you need than there’s no contest. But it’s not really a secret that shopping as a pastime has not migrated to the internet. Nobody, not even the the most hardened futurist, is suggesting that, say, clothing stores are going away in the near future. This is a case where the inefficiencies are going to be preserved by popular decree. Granted, stores have consolidated, many have gotten bigger. But it has and probably will stay a physical thing.

My problem is that the things I love most are largely able to be digitized and sold easily on the internet. When they did this with music, I was fine with it. The great local stores are by and large surviving, and I always avoided Virgin Records like the plague it was. I never collected vinyl and browsing for CDs isn’t that fantastic of an experience. I can’t wait for the point where I don’t have to deal with physical objects to watch a movie – dear god that has been a long time coming (although I hope theatres stick around for a while).

However, books are an unfortunate hybrid. I want to have some inefficiency thrown in my face. I often go to a bookstore not knowing what I want to pick out, wanting to see other people, to hang out and maybe get a coffee. I feel that most people have the same opinion. This collective desire is probably strong enough that, even if every last book was only sold digitally, there will probably still be some semi-public marketplace for the purchasing and enjoyment of literature. And while I’m inevitably going to mourn the missing piles of paper, there might be something to this new idea.

Most thinking about digital shopping still has it happening at home. It should be increasingly obvious that this is a total farce. If you’re not tethered to the wall with your computer you’re as (or maybe more) likely to be using it on the street, at a cafe, or under a tree. People are now growing up in a world where the majority of their media is completely mobile. The end result of all of this is most likely going to a dramatic redefinition of public spaces, uses, and mores. And hopefully some of them will be good enough to be missed when they’re gone.

The Beauty of Inefficiency

Library Smashers

For my first post on my new site I thought it appropriate to repeat something Geoff Manaugh has already reported on, as this is the content of my writing about 90% of the time. He writes about a CCA project that explored an alternate future for the public library that explodes it into constituent parts and lodges those rooms in tiny spaces throughout the city. This “break and scatter” methodology not only embeds libraries more firmly in their urban contexts but allows for a mutable and adaptable collection of spaces that changes as our relationship to media does.

I am immediately drawn to this thesis not only for its inherent flexibility but also because it sees the library as physical space – a particular phenomonology – before it sees it as a repository of media. The different actions that might take place at a library – searching, parsing, learning, communicating – are all given a discrete physical representation that then interacts with an urban context.

The future of the library is most likely tied to its ability to concentrate, verify and direct attention. These abilities are dependent upon both face to face communication and a strong, almost overriding physical context. Even if you provide access to reliable, in-depth information from a home computer or cellphone, people will still desire and search out a separate context to interact with that information. The library is your new office. Your new agora. Your new sounding board.

BLDGBLOG: The Atomized Library.

Library Smashers

notes on digital reading

my lovely wife got me a kindle 2 for the holidays, and I thought that I might do what nearly every person who has purchased the thing has done and write about it on my blog (writing on the internet seems to be the primary hobby of kindle owners).
After a few days of using the thing, what really surprises me the most is how different it is from any other digital device. It’s really impossible to do any kind of real comparison between an e-reader and an iphone or laptop or netbook or OLPC. For one, the Kindle is (as of yet) pretty much useless as a web device, due to the constraints of the software, connection, processor, and screen (in that order). it’s not impossible that it might be usable to email or search with some OS improvements, but the lag in typing and the difficulty in browsing means that, at best, it is useful for reading a few mobile news sites and wikipedia (it actually works quite well as a wikibrowser.)
What is does do extremely well is show text on a screen. I’m going to go ahead and say right now that I prefer reading on the kindle to reading a paperback. I’ve never been a fan of portable books – I always struggle with hand cramps and sore necks. This object is the right size, weight, and look for reading. I actually went back to a book last night and was kind of annoyed. It’s also fun to operate, has a good feel and good “cover” images (although the ability to customize would be nice).
The end result of all of this is that this might be the first digital device I’ve met that will actually end up slowing and concentrating my life rather than speeding and scattering. It’s fun to use so I’ll probably spend more time as a result reading novels, long-form magazine articles. Multi-tabbed browsing, skipping to minute 3 of a youtube video, quickfire rss feeding – this all now seems a little less important, and a little less fun.
It’s interesting that by changing the priorities and limitations of a device, one’s life can be subtly changed.

notes on digital reading

scattermoonshot

I’m a bit late at this, but there’s been a lot of bemoaning lately (or is it just moaning?) about the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. From Wired to Tom Wolfe, there has been a lot of furious agreement with astronauts and rocket scientists, that we really dropped the ball these last…four… decades. We should all be living on Mars by now, like Ben Bova wants us to! Like any proper nerd, I occasionally consider what it might be like to bring someone from the past – say, Benjamin Franklin – and introduce them to modern society. It gives one the ability to be amazing without actually doing anything, by piggybacking on two hundred and fifty years of technical and social progress. One gets to be the salesman that reveals your… new… future!

However, if instead of a founding father it’s, oh, Arthur C. Clarke, circa 1968, things get a little bit iffy. Then one has to explain how a colossal, colossal increase in computing and communications ability has made only subtle changes to our social fabric. How is it that telegrams and rockets can be so destabilizing to the status quo, produce a few World Wars and a subsequent world order on the other side, while similar technologies that are unbelievable improvements on connecting and computing lead to people working harder and a few stock market bubbles? Oh, and twitter.

Hulu is a great example. Why is Hulu so amazing? It roughly replicates cable TV, with slightly more interactivity, on a device that could land the population of Canada on the moon in LEMs, simultaneously. This is not an amazing use of your computer. It’s like getting Pavarotti to sing the Oscar Meyer Weiner song. What is amazing about Hulu is the business side – getting networks to agree to put their content online, the social side – selling it to the public, and the design side – the interface and video algorithms. And none of that is colossal.

scattermoonshot