Connectivity and literature
There is a lot of debate, at least in Denmark, about what it means for people to live in an age where they are always connected. No matter where you go, it's possible for other peoples to get hold of you. All of this is very interesting, relevant, and certainly something I might write about in a future blogpost.
This blogpost, however, is about what the connectivity means for literature. New York Times has an interesting article on the subject.
If Only Literature Could Be a Cellphone-Free Zone
I hadn't thought of this problem, but it's true. In this day and age, you'd have to be pretty selective in location, or make some pretty plausible reasons for someone to avoid technology, for such old plot devices to work.
Go read the article, and see what the different authors have to say about this.
Entirely in spirit with the article, I found it through facebook, where M.J. Rose linked to it.
This blogpost, however, is about what the connectivity means for literature. New York Times has an interesting article on the subject.
If Only Literature Could Be a Cellphone-Free Zone
Technology is rendering obsolete some classic narrative plot devices: missed connections, miscommunications, the inability to reach someone. Such gimmicks don’t pass the smell test when even the most remote destinations have wireless coverage. (It’s Odysseus, can someone look up the way to Ithaca? Use the “no Sirens” route.)
Of what significance is the loss to storytelling if characters from Sherwood Forest to the Gates of Hell can be instantly, if not constantly, connected?
I hadn't thought of this problem, but it's true. In this day and age, you'd have to be pretty selective in location, or make some pretty plausible reasons for someone to avoid technology, for such old plot devices to work.
Go read the article, and see what the different authors have to say about this.
Entirely in spirit with the article, I found it through facebook, where M.J. Rose linked to it.
Labels: books, literature, New York Times, technology

