Talk:Print culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

This page was created by students in three English 1101 courses at the

Georgia Institute of Technology
.

Thanks--we collectively wrote this intending to post it on Wikipedia. As such it isn't a "class paper" in the traditional sense. GaTech-1101 04:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article needs to be more balanced as to its sources. Eisenstein is a fine source, but should not be used so exclusively. Her work does not define the field, but merely comments on it, and this article should not imply anything otherwise.

I would recommend focusing much more on Ong (_Orality and Literacy_, last chapters of _Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue_), with maybe a blurb on McLuhan (_The Gutenberg Galaxy_), including a note that McLuhan's ideas are rather overblown and aren't very accurate today.

Finkelstein and McCleery's _Introduction to Book History_ and _The Book History Reader_ are both excellent sources, and should be referred to more.

Finally, a minor section might be useful in commenting on the disparity of the field, as there seems to be so much argument as to what is a text, what is a book, etc., and much seems to rely on dated models, hampering its usefulness in a post-pomo culture. This is just opinion, of course, and should be marked as such.

I will try to make some of these edits myself soon.70.62.24.90 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pruned

I've pruned this article rather severely. For one thing, it is based on the idea that "print culture" encompasses preliterate/oral culture and manuscript culture, which is incorrect. The transitions among these phases are hugely significant, but they don't belong in this article. Also, we already have perfectly good articles on

Johann Gutenberg and the printing press
. Finally, I took out most of the stuff about "non-print print culture" like Morse code and books on tape because they are peripheral.

Future additions to this article could include (among other things)

  • linking the rise of print culture to the Reformation and the rise of science fareen afsal
  • the development of newspapers, and the role of journalism in print culture

Note that the previous version of the article is still available in

page history, if you need to get at it for personal reasons. FreplySpang (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I think there is going to be a lot of overlap between this article and existing ones. Good points on possible directions this could go in. [[Usfareen afsal faren poouyuetwqkahfkjz<Kjgkgyfaree

A key element in print culture is that it is print - thus the name. While it should be noted that print culture is the basis for many other forms of non-verbal communication that have arisen, they themselves are not print culture - for instance, your common .mp3 music file is not a form of print culture, but rather a form of digital media. While a controversial term, the word "text" is typically used to describe the broad understanding of all that is knowledge. There appears to be an article on literary theory that describes text as illistrated in forms of media that are not printed. While an e-mail is not necessarily being printed, it is the direct evolution of print culture - you could say, print culture's counterpart in digital form. Music on hand, or tv advertisements are adaptations of print cultures basis and therefore a different subject entirely.

Also, early printed books are different from more modern forms of publication. There were limited numbers of letters, and sometimes the printer house ran out of enough of one type of letter and so alternate spellings were created. One good example is the letter "s". S was a difficult letter to create, and so typically there weren't oodles of them lying around, so many S's were replaced with F's.

That's a myth. The "f's" you're thinking of were not "f" pieces at all---they were long s's which were used in the middle of words as a typographic convention from Gutenburg's time until long "s" fell out of fashion in the 18th century (possibly the 17th, I can look it up if you wish). Check out the long s article.
The form of the narrative you give: "...S was a difficult letter to create, and so typically there weren't oodles of them lying around..." that sounds like a typical folk or urban myth. Sorts were cast by printers in tens of 1000's from master matrice moulds using Gutenburg's hand mould. "s" is no more difficult to cast sorts from than any other letter. And for a competent punch cutter (the people who carved the original letterpunches the matrice moulds were made from), "s" is no more difficult to craft than any other lower case or upper case form.
Arbo 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem that was encountered early on in the printing process was that many of the printer boys were illiterate. Thus said, there were many instances of wrong copying being done as the people responsible for doing the grunt work of the copying were not able to tell the difference. A good analogy to understand the difference between early print publications and more modern print, is to look at the difference between old English and modern English. Both old and new are forms of English, but while the average modern English speaker and reader could get the general understanding and points of a piece written in old english, they would not only have to take some time to work at what was being said, but also a group of people might take slightly different meaning in the reading of a piece of old English - the same general idea exists, but there is not an exact replication of understanding amongst the group.

Thus I am changing these points in the wikipedia article on print culture.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes. The wiki server will automatically replace the four tildes with your user name and time/date. Arbo 18:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution

Doesn't it seem odd that such a large part of the history of print culture focuses on the American Revolution? This belongs in an American history lesson- it sin't relevant to anyone else in the world, or to the history of printing. why is it necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.54.90 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution section really needs to be trimmed to just the hardcore essentials of print culture, a task I cannot complete myself. RedNitrogen 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it does. Any particular reason why you added it and then asked for radical trimming? FreplySpang (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was relevant to print culture in history, but in what I wrote, it seemed the main focus was a bit off and I tried to refocus it, but after I posted it, it seemed like it was still too long and still contained nonessential information. However, since print culture is being replaced by digital media these days, it would seem like a smart idea to give a prime example of its use when it was extremely important in defining an era that produced some of the most influential printed documents in our nation's (and possible the world's) history. I mean, no one else put in anything historical beyond its development. Logically, in a print culture article, it'd make sense to have something between the very beginning and a time when it is fading out . . . RedNitrogen 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the inclusion of this section as a main heading is too much. Print culture does not and is not centered around this one event. At most this should be an example. This could possibily be combined with the section on money under a new section called "examples" or something. --Yangified 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section does need severe editing, and I've started the ball rolling. First of all, the term "Revolution" is quite ambiguous -- not only were there many other prior and subsequent political revolutions influence by print culture, but Eisenstein and others use the term "printing revolution" to describe the major changes brought about by the printing press. When I first saw the headline I thought that's what it referred to, and ended up for a bit highly confused! So it's now "American Revolution." Secondly, the article's phrasing suggested (to those who don't know their history very well) that Magna Carta had been printed in 1215, so I've corrected that. Finally, I added a new section on the Renaissance and Reformation which are probably more important in terms of the effects of print culture and for which Eisenstein had described the relationship to print culture.67.188.125.25 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Technology

The changes in technology section was a little scatter brained. It seemed to run through a bunch of different thoughts but never fully developed any of them.

The advancements of technology in print culture can be separated into three shifts; spoken language to the written word, the written word to printing press, the printing press to the computer/internet. The written word has made history recordable and accurate. The printing press some may argue is not a part of print culture, but, it had a large and substantial impact upon the development of print culture through the times. The printing press brought uniformed copies and efficiency in print. It allowed a person to make a living from writing, and also for those critiquing novels and books. The computer and internet create the third major shift involved in the technological advancements. Today's technology is changing and evolving at a faster pace than ever before. Some may argue, that while these advancements in technology seem to push us along positivly they alternatively set us back socially. While the human computer interaction rises the human to human interaction declines.

Group 1 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: this statement: "Much of the early paper used for print is highly acidic, and will ultimately destroy itself," is untrue. High acidity is a feature of paper made from wood pulp, a process that was essentially unheard of before 1844. As any antique book dealer will tell you, linen paper is non-acidic, and it was the norm before the rise of pulp paper. So books from the late 19th/early 20th century, especially North American ones (since Canada started the process) are the ones that crumble away if not protected by a de-acidifying process. Books prior to 1850 are rarely acidic. 174.92.96.217 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Textual forms of Print

This section was not very specific there was no explination as to how the non-textual forms of print were really involved in print culture.

Symbols, logos and printed images are forms of printed media that do not rely on text. They are ubiquitous in modern urban life. Analyzing these cultural products is an important part of the field of cultural studies. Because of advancements in print we are able to minipulate other things other than words and letters. We are now able to create pictures that can supliment or take the place of text. Print has given rise to a wider distribution of pictures in society in conjunction with the printed word. Incorporation of printed pictures in magazines, newspapers, and books gave printed material a wider mass appeal through the ease of visual communication. Another product of non-textual print are roadside symbols, some of which incorporate printed words with eye-catching shapes and colors. This is a merging of pre-print symbolism with post-print linguistic communication. Group 1 20:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on Society

I think one important point of print culture that has been omitted is that there is a significant causation and correlation between the devlopment and progression of print culture and its effects on society. With the rise of print culture came better education, better communication, significant scientific devlopment, just to name a few.

Money and print?

I know money is printed, but it does not seem to fit into the concept of print culture. Where print culture is not an emphasis on the act of printing itself (though printing in and of itself is one hemisphere of the matter) the content of what is printed it the matter of print culture. Money does not store information, transfer, or imply any sort of textual trait--therefore I would consider ditching the money section (though I will leave that for the masses to decide).

Masses. Right. :-) I would also remove it. The material in that section would belong better in our article about Banknotes, or perhaps History of money. By the way, please sign your talk comments. It's easy - if you type four tildes ~~~~ the Wiki software will automatically fill in your signature and a timestamp. Like this -> FreplySpang (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3. State of Print Today

This section claims that 2.3 billion books are sold annually but that this number is rapidly decreasing. It should be determined whether this is limited to print books only. Also, to decrease the bias, it should be mentioned that there is an increasing number of digital books being sold (this should be researched also). As it is, the section could be seen as having a pro-print bias, and maybe even related pro-corporate printing house and pro-copyright-strengthening bias. Alberrosidus 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume "...2.3 billion books are sold annually..." refers to "books" in the paper & ink sense of the word.
"...pro-print bias..." Well, the subject of the article is "print culture", not "media culture". Discussing the pros and cons of print versus on-line publishing might be better placed in an article on "media culture", if it doesn't exist already (fingers crossed).
"...maybe even related pro-corporate printing house and pro-copyright-strengthening bias..."
No. That's your imagination working overtime. Try writing your own brilliant novel and getting it published, and you might better appreciate why copyright exists. Copyright is an artist's right to assert their identity as the originator of their intellectual property---work---to earn a living, and to control the distribution of their work. Is that inherently wrong and bad? Do you begrudge them that basic right? We don't assert our intellectual property rights to spite you or deprive you of nice works of art. We do it to prevent out livelihood being ripped off and profited from by con artists. Now go and find a writer and tell her or him why you think they shouldn't be able to copyright their work. Actually do it.
Oh, and try running a compay that employs people and generates prosperity yourself some day. "pro-corporate"? Get over it.
Arbo 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Further source material is needed in this section (as it is in all sections). Jay David Bolter's _Writing Space_ is landmark and shouldn't be left out, at least as recommended reading, for any discussion about the current state of the book. 70.62.24.90 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I've edited the introduction and some bits below to clarify that "print culture" refers to works of the printing press, in contrast to scribal culture.67.188.125.25 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed most of the printing-presses back to printing, in view of 1,000 years of Chinese block-printing. The article is ok, but still too dependent on two sources, who seem to push a rather narrow line

Johnbod 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Print culture and the American Revolution?

This sections seems totally unnecessary to me, and doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. Is there a good reason to keep it? Or should it be pruned?--lk 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I think it is fine but needs to be reframed and thoroughly referenced. The article can use better discussion of the different print cultures that arose around the globe. For instance, the focus is very Euro-American, when a long print culture can be found in Asia, with moveable type used in China well before Europe. —Caorongjin 💬 17:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ong and alphabet vs. other writing systems?

Walter Ong argues that scribal culture cannot exist until an alphabet is created, and a form of writing standardized.

I haven't read anything by Ong yet, but:

1. Can someone cite a specific source for this assertion -- in which book or article did he say this?

2. Did he really say that an alphabet, as opposed to an abugida, syllabary, or logographic writing system, is essential for scribal culture? Somehow I doubt it. It would make sense, perhaps, to say that a general-purpose writing system capable of expressing most of the content of the corresponding spoken language is necessary, as opposed to a specialized system that can communicate only certain types of pre-arranged messages. --Jim Henry (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Print culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Print_culture&oldid=1209537132"