Random
“CAN YOU PRINT IT OUT?” NO.
but it hurts my eyes :(
“Can you print it out?” is a question that belongs in the last century.
People ask this question a lot. They want to receive a paper manuscript, not an email attachment. Never mind that printing a manuscript is going to be a waste of anywhere from 100 pages to 1000 pages of paper, depending on the length of the work in question, how it’s spaced, and whether you printed single-sided. Never mind that it costs money (don’t even get me started on Kinko’s).
I used to think it was how “things were done.” Of course this editor wants 400 pages to arrive at her office in a heavy envelope via courier. It’s more legitimate. And it’s hard to read off a computer screen.
Well, no more. Let me assert a few things:
- It’s not that hard to read off a computer screen. I read a friend’s novel on my Blackberry a few months ago, as well as quite a few short stories. I also read 30+ TV scripts on my Blackberry this spring. And I’ve read numerous novels on my laptop, several recently. Friends’ novels and downloaded novels, like the Strugatskys’ Roadside Picnic. And, oh yeah, I spend like all day on the internet, or at least looking at some kind of screen–and so does most everyone else. Sorry, guys. Not a good excuse anymore. If your eyes are really, truly so sensitive to… pixels or… backlighting… that you can only read toner affixed to printer paper, then it’s on you to print out something that’s been emailed to you.
- It’s less convenient to lug around a manuscript than it is to transport your laptop, iPhone, iPad, or Blackberry. Two of those things fit in your pocket, and you’d be carrying them anyway. All four of them are, you know, a single object. A manuscript is ~400 individual flimsy things all in one floppy, bulky, unstable heap–perhaps bound by a rubber band, or contained within a bulging envelope or a clunky cardboard box. Is that really easier for you?
- It’s obnoxiously wasteful to print manuscripts. You have no excuse.
This goes for magazines that require print submissions, too, but that sort of goes without saying–we know they’re dinosaurs. Are there even any left? What I’m really talking about here are agents, editors, and friends.
I realize the logical endpoint of this whole argument is the death of print publishing as we know it. Am I fine with that? I’m not sure. But I’m getting there. In the meantime, just stop asking people to print it out for you.
Tags: printing
Once in a while I still print something out and send it somewhere in an actual envelope, but those instances are getting rarer and rarer. The whole rigmarole of dusting off the printer, finding paper, hooking the thing up – I can deal with that. But the amount of money I’ve shot straight down a hole on postage over the years because somebody somewhere doesn’t like reading on a computer screen! And, sure, I prefer reading on paper, but it costs almost 50 dollars to send a 250 page manuscript from where I live to NY. I almost crapped my pants in the post office. But I sent it. Six months later – the most galling rejection letter ever.
Sorry, it IS that hard to read 400 pages of a manuscript on a computer screen, to say nothing of marking up a manuscript.
Also if you are asking someone to read something as a favor it is always on you to make that easy for them to do, not on them to bend over backwards to do you a favor.
one of the few internet stories that had to be printed —
http://www.friggmagazine.com/issuetwentyone/poemsstories/fiction/Spaide/PlaygroundStory.htm
Maybe reading a manuscript on a screen is okay occasionally, but I’m not going to do that with all of them. When there is a book I’m really considering closely, a printed copy is helpful.
I’ve always assumed mags that require printed, mailed submissions did so in order to keep down the number of submissions. (Paris Review, Conjunctions, Salamander come to mind). Same way some still do not accept simultaneous submissions. You’re less likely to send something on a lark if you have to mail it, and if you do send something, it’s more likely to be something of your best. Whereas with SubmishMash and Sub Manager, it’s really easy to send a story to 12 different mags in a matter of an hour or so. Having worked at a mag that made the switch from paper to Sub Manager, I can say subs went way up–but also it was a lot easier to reject. So maybe it’s six in one hand, etc.
As far as a whole book is concerned, it reaches a point where a printed copy is necessary for mark-ups. Adobe just isn’t there yet. And tracked changes / commenting in Word gets too messy and confusing.
i’m inclined to believe that we have an endless supply of paper and that recycling doesn’t really help or hurt much of anything.
Had to be printed?
I dunno, I probably spend more hours reading words on screen than on paper each day, but on paper I find I can focus and pay attention to the writing a little more. Maybe it’s that ink on paper is more permanent than pixels on a screen, less ephemeral, which serves what we like to call literature. Like if I’m going to read an old book out of copyright I could find a version online and read it there (and I have) but I would rather find a copy at a bookstore. Though I know the case presented here is a little different, but wouldn’t you want the person reading your manuscript to pay as much attention to it as possible?
Also I find I don’t mind reading individual short stories or shorter essays electronically at all but would absolutely find it burdensome to even begin reading something >100 pages long unless I planned to finish with a physical copy.
although, i should clarify that recycling does help immensely as it is part of, and helps to proliferate, the kinds of values that make for a decent society. Conservation, care for the land, etc. I just think that the forces that do fuck up the environment don’t get the deserved attention because the onus is always put back on the individual: “recycle that bottle, bra!” “don’t print out that essay, yo” etc. etc.
Also, someone should get the numbers on the potential e-waste vs. conventional paper wastes to see which one is truly the more responsible decision.
Nope.
And regarding marking it up, it’s more efficient for everyone involved to use “track changes.” That’s why most editors tend to do that now with novels of authors they’re already publishing.
“Track changes” is how it’s done with most book manuscripts now.
good story
Yep.
Wow, fun game. Bottom line is millions and millions of people find it really annoying, kind of like vuvuzlas, whether you individually do or not.
Fortunately, many if not most of those people will learn to adapt in the next decade or so. And every future generation will have less of them.
Fortunate for lazer eye surgeons, I guess.
One of the most persistent myths is that reading in the dark damages your eyes. It doesn’t. It may cause temporary strain, but there’s no evidence it causes permanent damage. (http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-nature/health-myths/reading-in-dim-light.htm)
Same deal with reading off a computer screen. (http://www.slate.com/id/2249406)
If you had never read a printed book before and you sat down and read an average-length novel cover to cover, you’d probably experience “transient myopia” because your eyes weren’t accustomed to that experience. But you don’t, really, because you’re used to it. If you start reading books regularly on a laptop, iPad, or other digital device, your eyes will become accustomed to it, and you’ll no longer feel like a comfortable reading experience requires a stack of printed pages to peruse.
Over 60% of the population uses corrective lenses and that percent has been rising dramatically over the decades. Our constant focus on short distance vision is definitely destroying our eyes, whether books or screens, and people having to stare at a little handheld screen whenever they go outside now isn’t gonna help that.
Sounds like this is more of a convenience issue for YOU, Nick. Sounds like you want everything all smashed into your blackberry so you have your hands free for corn dogs and shit.
Also, i think most posters here grew up with computers and have been used to staring at computer screens for hours and hours a day for most of their lives. Some, perhaps even most, still don’t like long-form reading on computer screens.
This is not an issue of getting used to anything.
this is close to my thinking. it bothers me to use things that are multifunctional. is why i dont have a cellphone because i cant find one anymore that is just a phone. i like books because they have only one function. a computer, there’s too many other functions that distract. i get distracted easily when i read, i need to be in familiar environments with no tv sound anywhere. when i get in serious writing mode i always disconnect from the internet too. im just that kind of person.
U R LA ZEE
People who read a lot, all throughout their lives, tend to need glasses or contacts. So? This is nothing new. All other things being equal, it’s wasteful and inefficient to insist on paper copies of manuscripts.
It is an issue of getting used to something new. It is axiomatic that we’re in a period of transition between print and digital. I think that if you look around in ten years, you will see that the transition has progressed to the point where most people have gotten used to reading off screens (which by that time will almost certainly have been developed to the point where it’s impossible for the eye to distinguish between digital resolution and printed words on a piece of paper).
As for growing up with computers–well, sort of. I’m 27. I’ve used a computer since I was maybe 11 or so. But I grew up reading, and still read, hard copies of printed books that are bound and published… even though when I read friends’ manuscripts, I do so on my laptop or some other media device. Someone born today will “grow up with computers” in a very different and immersive way. People born in the last decade are digital natives to a degree that most posters here are not.
Values, maybe. But Recycling is bullshit. At least according to Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!.
I just like reading off paper. I like it. It makes me happy. I like using pencils. These are things I like.
I do plenty of other things for the environment, so the wastefulness of printing a few pages isn’t an issue to me.
Noon & Granta only accept print submissions and I respect them for that.
I know, I just don’t like it.
That’s fair… if you like printing stuff, by all means, print. What I’m pushing back on here is the inclination of some institutions or individuals to require others to print.
i’ve spent much of this year trying to print less, but i’m really failing lately. i think it might be my job. i just can’t read on a screen after sitting in front of a computer for 7 hours. if i don’t have some sort of variation, my eyes get heavy and i have a harder time focusing.
i do like grading papers via track changes, though. i feel like i give more earnest, thoughtful feedback that way.
I just printed off 500 copies of this post
Requiring paper submissions doesn’t cut down on submissions.
Paper does not need batteries.
it spreads the cost
Grading papers by track changes: I haven’t made that switch, and yeah, all my digital native students bitch and moan when I make them bring hard copies to class, say I’m burning through their college allocated copy limit. Still, for now, I like reading on paper, especially for editing, my work or another’s. I got a Kindle, tried it for a while, and it didn’t catch. Now it’s under a bunch of stuff with a dead battery.
yeah, but let’s say I am Diane Williams and I love marking things up in red pencil and I also happen to run the amazing NOON. Diane runs that magazine out of the goodness of her heart. You owe it to her, if you wish to be a contributor, to print if she says print.
Same goes to Granta. Even the most respected, well-read, successful magazines are run by people who put in 80 hour work weeks. Same goes for people in publishing. Be nice to them. Do what they want. If weren’t there writers would just be called unemployed people.
(last sentence: if they weren’t there…)
If you don’t want to print, don’t fucking submit. There’s no way in hell I’m ever reading a 400 page manuscript on a computer screen, and it’s perfectly reasonable of them to ask you to print it out.
Once in a while I still print something out and send it somewhere in an actual envelope, but those instances are getting rarer and rarer. The whole rigmarole of dusting off the printer, finding paper, hooking the thing up – I can deal with that. But the amount of money I’ve shot straight down a hole on postage over the years because somebody somewhere doesn’t like reading on a computer screen! And, sure, I prefer reading on paper, but it costs almost 50 dollars to send a 250 page manuscript from where I live to NY. I almost crapped my pants in the post office. But I sent it. Six months later – the most galling rejection letter ever.
Sorry, it IS that hard to read 400 pages of a manuscript on a computer screen, to say nothing of marking up a manuscript.
Also if you are asking someone to read something as a favor it is always on you to make that easy for them to do, not on them to bend over backwards to do you a favor.
one of the few internet stories that had to be printed —
http://www.friggmagazine.com/issuetwentyone/poemsstories/fiction/Spaide/PlaygroundStory.htm
Maybe reading a manuscript on a screen is okay occasionally, but I’m not going to do that with all of them. When there is a book I’m really considering closely, a printed copy is helpful.
I remember that one. It was good. Ellen picks good.
I’ve always assumed mags that require printed, mailed submissions did so in order to keep down the number of submissions. (Paris Review, Conjunctions, Salamander come to mind). Same way some still do not accept simultaneous submissions. You’re less likely to send something on a lark if you have to mail it, and if you do send something, it’s more likely to be something of your best. Whereas with SubmishMash and Sub Manager, it’s really easy to send a story to 12 different mags in a matter of an hour or so. Having worked at a mag that made the switch from paper to Sub Manager, I can say subs went way up–but also it was a lot easier to reject. So maybe it’s six in one hand, etc.
As far as a whole book is concerned, it reaches a point where a printed copy is necessary for mark-ups. Adobe just isn’t there yet. And tracked changes / commenting in Word gets too messy and confusing.
i’m inclined to believe that we have an endless supply of paper and that recycling doesn’t really help or hurt much of anything.
Had to be printed?
I dunno, I probably spend more hours reading words on screen than on paper each day, but on paper I find I can focus and pay attention to the writing a little more. Maybe it’s that ink on paper is more permanent than pixels on a screen, less ephemeral, which serves what we like to call literature. Like if I’m going to read an old book out of copyright I could find a version online and read it there (and I have) but I would rather find a copy at a bookstore. Though I know the case presented here is a little different, but wouldn’t you want the person reading your manuscript to pay as much attention to it as possible?
Also I find I don’t mind reading individual short stories or shorter essays electronically at all but would absolutely find it burdensome to even begin reading something >100 pages long unless I planned to finish with a physical copy.
although, i should clarify that recycling does help immensely as it is part of, and helps to proliferate, the kinds of values that make for a decent society. Conservation, care for the land, etc. I just think that the forces that do fuck up the environment don’t get the deserved attention because the onus is always put back on the individual: “recycle that bottle, bra!” “don’t print out that essay, yo” etc. etc.
Ha!
Also, someone should get the numbers on the potential e-waste vs. conventional paper wastes to see which one is truly the more responsible decision.
I look forward to your gradual extinction.
Nope.
And regarding marking it up, it’s more efficient for everyone involved to use “track changes.” That’s why most editors tend to do that now with novels of authors they’re already publishing.
“Track changes” is how it’s done with most book manuscripts now.
That’s fine, too. That’s why I very, very rarely submit to places that require print submissions. They don’t miss me, and I don’t have to print a bunch of stuff. It’s fine for everyone.
I’m not saying I never, ever print anymore. I’ll do it if a) the person requesting it is fairly old, like old enough to have been an adult before everybody had computers; or b) the potential for acceptance/publication is tempting enough for me to suppress my irritation.
But as a general rule, I resist whenever possible.
good story
Yep.
Wow, fun game. Bottom line is millions and millions of people find it really annoying, kind of like vuvuzlas, whether you individually do or not.
Fortunately, many if not most of those people will learn to adapt in the next decade or so. And every future generation will have less of them.
Fortunate for lazer eye surgeons, I guess.
It’s a bit silly to complain that printing out an ms is wasting paper, when publishing a book wastes far more thanks to returns, remainders, or stripping of covers.
One of the most persistent myths is that reading in the dark damages your eyes. It doesn’t. It may cause temporary strain, but there’s no evidence it causes permanent damage. (http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-nature/health-myths/reading-in-dim-light.htm)
Same deal with reading off a computer screen. (http://www.slate.com/id/2249406)
If you had never read a printed book before and you sat down and read an average-length novel cover to cover, you’d probably experience “transient myopia” because your eyes weren’t accustomed to that experience. But you don’t, really, because you’re used to it. If you start reading books regularly on a laptop, iPad, or other digital device, your eyes will become accustomed to it, and you’ll no longer feel like a comfortable reading experience requires a stack of printed pages to peruse.
Over 60% of the population uses corrective lenses and that percent has been rising dramatically over the decades. Our constant focus on short distance vision is definitely destroying our eyes, whether books or screens, and people having to stare at a little handheld screen whenever they go outside now isn’t gonna help that.
Sounds like this is more of a convenience issue for YOU, Nick. Sounds like you want everything all smashed into your blackberry so you have your hands free for corn dogs and shit.
Also, i think most posters here grew up with computers and have been used to staring at computer screens for hours and hours a day for most of their lives. Some, perhaps even most, still don’t like long-form reading on computer screens.
This is not an issue of getting used to anything.
this is close to my thinking. it bothers me to use things that are multifunctional. is why i dont have a cellphone because i cant find one anymore that is just a phone. i like books because they have only one function. a computer, there’s too many other functions that distract. i get distracted easily when i read, i need to be in familiar environments with no tv sound anywhere. when i get in serious writing mode i always disconnect from the internet too. im just that kind of person.
U R LA ZEE
People who read a lot, all throughout their lives, tend to need glasses or contacts. So? This is nothing new. All other things being equal, it’s wasteful and inefficient to insist on paper copies of manuscripts.
It is an issue of getting used to something new. It is axiomatic that we’re in a period of transition between print and digital. I think that if you look around in ten years, you will see that the transition has progressed to the point where most people have gotten used to reading off screens (which by that time will almost certainly have been developed to the point where it’s impossible for the eye to distinguish between digital resolution and printed words on a piece of paper).
As for growing up with computers–well, sort of. I’m 27. I’ve used a computer since I was maybe 11 or so. But I grew up reading, and still read, hard copies of printed books that are bound and published… even though when I read friends’ manuscripts, I do so on my laptop or some other media device. Someone born today will “grow up with computers” in a very different and immersive way. People born in the last decade are digital natives to a degree that most posters here are not.
Values, maybe. But Recycling is bullshit. At least according to Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!.
I just like reading off paper. I like it. It makes me happy. I like using pencils. These are things I like.
I do plenty of other things for the environment, so the wastefulness of printing a few pages isn’t an issue to me.
Noon & Granta only accept print submissions and I respect them for that.
tub reader!!
I know, I just don’t like it.
Now I’ve taped 50 of the 500 all around my attic walls, and attached a copy of Granta: Issue 110 to the floor – right in the middle – with a knife. I couldn’t find any fake blood to sprinkle on its cover, so I had to use the real blood my hamster had. Now he’s in the dirt, helping the paper trees get big and strong. I assume this is his way of apologizing for my paper sin. His way of covering my ass, so to speak. I’ve over the past few hours given it a lot of thought, and have resolved at last, for the sake of nature, to buy no more toilet paper until the other 450 copies of this post have been used up. I plan to use the extra money to buy a Nook.
Thank you for converting me!
The idea that computers/cell phones/etcetera are an “eco-friendly” alternative to paper is ridiculous. Plastic? Columbite–tantalite? Horrible shit.
Good call, Nick. I prefer reading books on paper, printed books, printed mss, but I’m old school like that.
That’s fair… if you like printing stuff, by all means, print. What I’m pushing back on here is the inclination of some institutions or individuals to require others to print.
Printed books are, in most cases, 100% compostable. Not so for an iPad, Kindle, Nook, etc.
i’ve spent much of this year trying to print less, but i’m really failing lately. i think it might be my job. i just can’t read on a screen after sitting in front of a computer for 7 hours. if i don’t have some sort of variation, my eyes get heavy and i have a harder time focusing.
i do like grading papers via track changes, though. i feel like i give more earnest, thoughtful feedback that way.
I just printed off 500 copies of this post
This hipster is really pissed about people reading paper!
Requiring paper submissions doesn’t cut down on submissions.
Paper does not need batteries.
it spreads the cost
Yeah, Mr. Antipasta, ask them Chinese about the bio-degradations of computer parts. Those poor sons-of-long-marchers hate paper as much as you do which is why their blood is now 33% silicon. And remember this: technology doesn’t equal progress or evolution; it just means money is changing hands again.
Grading papers by track changes: I haven’t made that switch, and yeah, all my digital native students bitch and moan when I make them bring hard copies to class, say I’m burning through their college allocated copy limit. Still, for now, I like reading on paper, especially for editing, my work or another’s. I got a Kindle, tried it for a while, and it didn’t catch. Now it’s under a bunch of stuff with a dead battery.
By “track changes” I imagine you mean “purchase a copy of Microsoft Word”; so much for your postage savings.
The free interchange of digital files really ought to work exactly like you describe, but it doesn’t usually. I have found no legitimate, useable substitute for marking up a printed manuscript with a red pen. I agree that there should be one. But “track changes” is a buggy, poorly implemented feature of a buggy, poorly-implemented word processor.
A good craftsman uses good tools. Paper is a mature technology; it works way better for some things.
And as far as your carbon footprint, I would like to see a complete comparison between your sheet of post-consumer recycled printer paper vs. the electricity consumed by your laptop as you read and edit one page, plus the amortized cost of building it, shipping it, recycling its toxic batteries and flame-retardant-laced case, per page of paper that it (supposedly) allowed you to avoid printing upon. I really have no idea which option is greener, wiser or holier at this given moment in history.
OK, clearly I am a grumpy fucker this afternoon. Not your fault …
yeah, but let’s say I am Diane Williams and I love marking things up in red pencil and I also happen to run the amazing NOON. Diane runs that magazine out of the goodness of her heart. You owe it to her, if you wish to be a contributor, to print if she says print.
Same goes to Granta. Even the most respected, well-read, successful magazines are run by people who put in 80 hour work weeks. Same goes for people in publishing. Be nice to them. Do what they want. If weren’t there writers would just be called unemployed people.
(last sentence: if they weren’t there…)
If you don’t want to print, don’t fucking submit. There’s no way in hell I’m ever reading a 400 page manuscript on a computer screen, and it’s perfectly reasonable of them to ask you to print it out.
I have an iPad and it really is harder to read on for a long time. And no, I’m not just making that up–Wired just did a piece about why it’s harder to read on a computer and it’s because the pixel density isn’t as high as with printed ink, or e-ink. It’s why the new iPhone’s resolution is such a big deal. I prefer paper or my nook.
Also, I was an adult when not everyone had computers and I am not old. It wasn’t really that long ago, believe it or not. :)
NICK COME ON MAN, ANYONE CAN SEE YOU AREN’T BEING REAL WITH US
DON’T EVEN GET ZZZZZIPP STARTED ON THE SERVER FARMS, MYKLE. THEY MAKE MY PHOTON SHIVER. RED-HOT ENERGY SINK. FRIGHTENING. NO ONE SEES THE INTERNET’S GUTS FROM THE CONSUMER END.
DON’T WORRY ABOUT GRUMPINESS. IT IS A GOOD THING TO BE FIERCE ABOUT.
DARBY THERE’S A CELL PHONE FOR SENIORS WITH LARGE BUTTONS THAT’S JUST A PHONE, AND IT EVEN HAS AN ARTIFICIAL DIAL TONE. SEEN IN WIRED. A BACK-PAGE ADVERTISEMENT.
CELL PHONES ARE UNNECESSARY, ANYWAY–THE ONLY CATCH IS THAT EVERYONE EXPECTS YOU TO OWN ONE.
PIGGY ARE YOU HUNGRY DO YOU WANT TO GO DOWN TO TUCKER’S FOR A CORN ROAST? I’LL GO.
I remember that one. It was good. Ellen picks good.
Ha!
I look forward to your gradual extinction.
That’s fine, too. That’s why I very, very rarely submit to places that require print submissions. They don’t miss me, and I don’t have to print a bunch of stuff. It’s fine for everyone.
I’m not saying I never, ever print anymore. I’ll do it if a) the person requesting it is fairly old, like old enough to have been an adult before everybody had computers; or b) the potential for acceptance/publication is tempting enough for me to suppress my irritation.
But as a general rule, I resist whenever possible.
It’s a bit silly to complain that printing out an ms is wasting paper, when publishing a book wastes far more thanks to returns, remainders, or stripping of covers.
Maybe so for some definition of “most” and “book” and “now”, but not so much in my tiny small-press universe. (Please denigrate.)
i saw an infomercial for those phones. they are a good idea.
tub reader!!
Now I’ve taped 50 of the 500 all around my attic walls, and attached a copy of Granta: Issue 110 to the floor – right in the middle – with a knife. I couldn’t find any fake blood to sprinkle on its cover, so I had to use the real blood my hamster had. Now he’s in the dirt, helping the paper trees get big and strong. I assume this is his way of apologizing for my paper sin. His way of covering my ass, so to speak. I’ve over the past few hours given it a lot of thought, and have resolved at last, for the sake of nature, to buy no more toilet paper until the other 450 copies of this post have been used up. I plan to use the extra money to buy a Nook.
Thank you for converting me!
The idea that computers/cell phones/etcetera are an “eco-friendly” alternative to paper is ridiculous. Plastic? Columbite–tantalite? Horrible shit.
Good call, Nick. I prefer reading books on paper, printed books, printed mss, but I’m old school like that.
Printed books are, in most cases, 100% compostable. Not so for an iPad, Kindle, Nook, etc.
This hipster is really pissed about people reading paper!
Yeah, Mr. Antipasta, ask them Chinese about the bio-degradations of computer parts. Those poor sons-of-long-marchers hate paper as much as you do which is why their blood is now 33% silicon. And remember this: technology doesn’t equal progress or evolution; it just means money is changing hands again.
By “track changes” I imagine you mean “purchase a copy of Microsoft Word”; so much for your postage savings.
The free interchange of digital files really ought to work exactly like you describe, but it doesn’t usually. I have found no legitimate, useable substitute for marking up a printed manuscript with a red pen. I agree that there should be one. But “track changes” is a buggy, poorly implemented feature of a buggy, poorly-implemented word processor.
A good craftsman uses good tools. Paper is a mature technology; it works way better for some things.
And as far as your carbon footprint, I would like to see a complete comparison between your sheet of post-consumer recycled printer paper vs. the electricity consumed by your laptop as you read and edit one page, plus the amortized cost of building it, shipping it, recycling its toxic batteries and flame-retardant-laced case, per page of paper that it (supposedly) allowed you to avoid printing upon. I really have no idea which option is greener, wiser or holier at this given moment in history.
OK, clearly I am a grumpy fucker this afternoon. Not your fault …
What? How am I not being real with you, zzzzzipp?
You would know better than me. But that surprises me.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. Every piece of research about this has proven that we aren’t evolving to do the things we used to do on paper on a screen. We’re (de)evolving into people with short attention spans and shallower minds. When hipsters start acting superior because they have gadgets with blinky lights, what they’re really gloating about is that they have the brain of a squirrel.
I require paper manuscripts for books. Editing is faster and more intuitive when you can flip back through a ms, write what you’re thinking without highlighting and typing into those goddamn little boxes. Furthermore, it’s my press. If someone thinks it’s too entirely un-hip for him or her to print out their book, probably not someone I needed around anyway.
Besides, I have no children and never will. I can do %50 more damage to the environment than any other slob American, and still do more for the health of the planet than some eco-friendly soccer mom in a hybrid whining about carbon footprints. More, since I will also not have grandchildren, great-grand-children, etc…
I have an iPad and it really is harder to read on for a long time. And no, I’m not just making that up–Wired just did a piece about why it’s harder to read on a computer and it’s because the pixel density isn’t as high as with printed ink, or e-ink. It’s why the new iPhone’s resolution is such a big deal. I prefer paper or my nook.
Also, I was an adult when not everyone had computers and I am not old. It wasn’t really that long ago, believe it or not. :)
you have a mathematical formula?
not saying one way or the other is better, just honestly curious that you have a way of knowing you can do ‘50% more damage’
Nick: Do you sleep? Do you sleep well? You can argue all you want about the lack of damage to the eyes from overuse of computers — I don’t know about that — but you can’t argue w/ how the flickering screen messes w/ your synapses, which results in crazy sleep issues/patterns seen all across the spectrum from video-game junkies to tech workers to blog addicts. Of course, I have to use a computer to write and to research and to communicate w/ my e-peeps, but I’m not going to add to this reading complete manuscripts or books when there are paper alternatives. I’m not interested in your cyborg ways. I don’t have a cellphone or an iPhone. Call me a dinosaur, but at least I’m human. And I do sleep very well every night. How about you?
NICK COME ON MAN, ANYONE CAN SEE YOU AREN’T BEING REAL WITH US
DON’T EVEN GET ZZZZZIPP STARTED ON THE SERVER FARMS, MYKLE. THEY MAKE MY PHOTON SHIVER. RED-HOT ENERGY SINK. FRIGHTENING. NO ONE SEES THE INTERNET’S GUTS FROM THE CONSUMER END.
DON’T WORRY ABOUT GRUMPINESS. IT IS A GOOD THING TO BE FIERCE ABOUT.
DARBY THERE’S A CELL PHONE FOR SENIORS WITH LARGE BUTTONS THAT’S JUST A PHONE, AND IT EVEN HAS AN ARTIFICIAL DIAL TONE. SEEN IN WIRED. A BACK-PAGE ADVERTISEMENT.
CELL PHONES ARE UNNECESSARY, ANYWAY–THE ONLY CATCH IS THAT EVERYONE EXPECTS YOU TO OWN ONE.
PIGGY ARE YOU HUNGRY DO YOU WANT TO GO DOWN TO TUCKER’S FOR A CORN ROAST? I’LL GO.
I just read on my iPhone that evolution takes more than 15 years to occur.
[smiley thing]
iPad. Japan’s emerging erasable paper. Fuck luddism.
Sleep is what you do when the mission is complete. Even if we are wrong, we will win. We always have. We embrace the now, embrace reality. We are true. You are false. You lie.
Sent from my iPad, biotch.
damn kids with their blinky light things! goddamn hipsters! i’m glad i never had any bloody kids… always muckin’ about, causin’ fuss… goddamn…mothers… in vans…
i’ve got my dog, wilbur, and my friends, and my printing press. and when i die, people will know i upheld the written word, printed on paper, my friend! gee willabees, i don’t know about this next generation, but i was a man… i was a man who believed in a thing called principle. by god, we read manuscripts with our hands, good strong printerman hands, with real callus-like ridges in them… we poured the ink into the ribbons like blood, i tell you! like blooood… and then… well we printed them. and then we read them, by candlelight! or with lamps sure, but not backlit lights or glowy blinking electronic doodad lights. by god, men used to carve trees into…smaller bits of trees…and they shaved those tree bits into smaller tree paper bits, and then the blood ink i mentioned…and then, by god, they read! they read real books! on trees! by god almight— *croak*
Maybe so for some definition of “most” and “book” and “now”, but not so much in my tiny small-press universe. (Please denigrate.)
i saw an infomercial for those phones. they are a good idea.
That’s actually a good point. I do like to read in the bathtub. I’ve never read off any kind of digital device while taking a bath.
What? How am I not being real with you, zzzzzipp?
You would know better than me. But that surprises me.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. Every piece of research about this has proven that we aren’t evolving to do the things we used to do on paper on a screen. We’re (de)evolving into people with short attention spans and shallower minds. When hipsters start acting superior because they have gadgets with blinky lights, what they’re really gloating about is that they have the brain of a squirrel.
I require paper manuscripts for books. Editing is faster and more intuitive when you can flip back through a ms, write what you’re thinking without highlighting and typing into those goddamn little boxes. Furthermore, it’s my press. If someone thinks it’s too entirely un-hip for him or her to print out their book, probably not someone I needed around anyway.
Besides, I have no children and never will. I can do %50 more damage to the environment than any other slob American, and still do more for the health of the planet than some eco-friendly soccer mom in a hybrid whining about carbon footprints. More, since I will also not have grandchildren, great-grand-children, etc…
a bath! how quaint. everyone knows that in the future such bacteria-friendly cesspools will have been made obsolete. i look forward to your gradual extinction.
you have a mathematical formula?
not saying one way or the other is better, just honestly curious that you have a way of knowing you can do ‘50% more damage’
Nick: Do you sleep? Do you sleep well? You can argue all you want about the lack of damage to the eyes from overuse of computers — I don’t know about that — but you can’t argue w/ how the flickering screen messes w/ your synapses, which results in crazy sleep issues/patterns seen all across the spectrum from video-game junkies to tech workers to blog addicts. Of course, I have to use a computer to write and to research and to communicate w/ my e-peeps, but I’m not going to add to this reading complete manuscripts or books when there are paper alternatives. I’m not interested in your cyborg ways. I don’t have a cellphone or an iPhone. Call me a dinosaur, but at least I’m human. And I do sleep very well every night. How about you?
I just read on my iPhone that evolution takes more than 15 years to occur.
[smiley thing]
iPad. Japan’s emerging erasable paper. Fuck luddism.
Sleep is what you do when the mission is complete. Even if we are wrong, we will win. We always have. We embrace the now, embrace reality. We are true. You are false. You lie.
Sent from my iPad, biotch.
damn kids with their blinky light things! goddamn hipsters! i’m glad i never had any bloody kids… always muckin’ about, causin’ fuss… goddamn…mothers… in vans…
i’ve got my dog, wilbur, and my friends, and my printing press. and when i die, people will know i upheld the written word, printed on paper, my friend! gee willabees, i don’t know about this next generation, but i was a man… i was a man who believed in a thing called principle. by god, we read manuscripts with our hands, good strong printerman hands, with real callus-like ridges in them… we poured the ink into the ribbons like blood, i tell you! like blooood… and then… well we printed them. and then we read them, by candlelight! or with lamps sure, but not backlit lights or glowy blinking electronic doodad lights. by god, men used to carve trees into…smaller bits of trees…and they shaved those tree bits into smaller tree paper bits, and then the blood ink i mentioned…and then, by god, they read! they read real books! on trees! by god almight— *croak*
That’s actually a good point. I do like to read in the bathtub. I’ve never read off any kind of digital device while taking a bath.
it’s 48.672 %, but give JC the benefit of the bump
indeed…had . . . as in so good it needed to be printed in case the internets and googs burped too much and all was lost
glad you liked it…nick. it was one of the few stories i read where i was angry i couldn’t find the author’s email addy/website and say LOVED it. All of KS’s work that I’ve read is potent.
it’s 48.672 %, but give JC the benefit of the bump
Nick, this seems less about digital versus print, track changes versus red pen, and more about the idea that your writing is so great that you are doing your friends and editors a favor by allowing them to read your manuscripts, and that the onus is on them to make whatever adaptations necessary to get that awesome benefit.
indeed…had . . . as in so good it needed to be printed in case the internets and googs burped too much and all was lost
glad you liked it…nick. it was one of the few stories i read where i was angry i couldn’t find the author’s email addy/website and say LOVED it. All of KS’s work that I’ve read is potent.
WELL NICK FIRST OF ALL YOU ARE ASSUMING A LOT AND USING THAT TO MAKE POINTS IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
FOR INSTANCE YOU ARE NOT MUCH OLDER THAN ZZZZIPP BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCE ZZZIPP HAS USED COMPUTERS “SIGNIFICANTLY” SINCE THE DAY HE COULD MANIPULATE THEM AND BEING THIS “IMMERSED” HAS DONE NOTHING TO IMPROVE “COMPUTER/EYESIGHT/CONTEMPLATION” RELATIONSHIP.
PHM YOU COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE. THE iPAD HAS COWED YOU.
Nick, there may indeed be a near future where everyone walks everywhere carrying some google or apple reading tablet and future computer screens may be easier to read on and massage your eyes with their lovely glow. I don’t know.
But here, in 2010, when computer screens are annoying to read on long form and most people don’t have whatever overpriced apple product is on the market, if someone is doing you a favor by reading your manuscript it is up to you to get it to them in a form they can read it in, IMHO.
zippy- you sound more agitated than usual. are u ok? is it the solar storms?
The only thing sillier than real luddism are the people who think that every new tech product is automatically superior to anything at already exists. But hey, your money to toss away on silly gizmos.
YOU’RE RIGHT, MIMI. PROBABLY THE SOLAR STORMS. ZZZZIPP NEEDS TO CALM DOWN, TAKE SOME “Z-TIME”.
rest easy little buddy
Actually, for reading my Sony reader was much better.
Most people who make that to have and to hold argument are just selfish.
Hey man, all I gotta do is give Al Gore some money, and my wasteful ways are automatically turned into ecological goodwill.
It’s a little crazy to imply that those of us who enjoy reading on e-readers and the like are inhuman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y [this one’s for paul edward cunningham yall]
Don’t be a jerk, Amy. The post is about nothing of the sort. I never ask anyone to print out anything they send me, whether it’s a 20-page short story, a 120-page screenplay, or a 400-page novel, and if for whatever reason I need a paper copy of someone else’s manuscript for something, I print it out myself. It annoys me when people insist on paper copies of manuscripts, from me or anyone else, because the world is changing, and I think that if–because of your eyesight or your fondness for using red pens or your affection for the good old days before all the flashing and blinking lights–you prefer to adhere to the customs of the past, you should shoulder the inconvenience, not force other people around you to do it. There is obviously a lot of chafing against the argument in this post–probably because lots of people here ask for printed manuscript submissions–but if you check back in ten to fifteen years, I am certain that (barring a nuclear or environmental catastrophe so severe we are all living in Mad Max) demands for printed manuscripts will be a rare eccentricity. (But still perhaps considered endearing by some.)
I’ve had periods of severe insomnia in my life. I don’t think they’re related to my use of computers, however; I think they’re related to my disinclination to stick to a regular sleep cycle (most problematic from 2005-2009, when I had a 9-5 job) combined with mild but persistent depression and irregular use of legally prescribed stimulants.
this thread be crackin me up
“Printed books are, in most cases, 100% compostable. Not so for an iPad, Kindle, Nook, etc.”
This is true, and I’d be interested to see a detailed breakdown of what happens to a discarded iPad. However, given that iPads, Blackberries, and laptops all exist in prodigious numbers and can’t be made to vanish, an insistence on printing seems irrational and decadent.
What prompted me to make this post–which has clearly touched an unexpected nerve–was a recent visit to a guy’s office… the fellow was telling me about an unpublished novel he’d read, and he offered to give it to me. “I’ll print it out!” he said–this is a ~400 page novel–and I said it would be easier and less wasteful to send me a .pdf or something… but no, he insisted on printing this huge, ridiculous stack of paper for me to take with me. (The novel’s good so far, despite my hatred of huge stacks of paper.) And all over his office were other stacks of paper… screenplays and the like. (A screenplay is *formatted* for easy reading. For *skimming.* Come on.)
And then I thought back to the people who’ve said “Can you print it out?” to me. Some of these people are age 45 or 50+. Okay, fine, I’m not going to object. But some are my age, or younger. And it’s like… my eyes are not superhuman. I wear glasses, and I read *constantly*. I’ve read more novels than I can count off my computer screen. I read at least two, sometimes as many as *twenty-five* screenplays off my computer or phone per week. My eyes don’t ache and I don’t get headaches. And I know that most of the young people who ask for printed copies spend hours and hours a day online, or writing their own stuff on a computer. It just doesn’t seem rational for them to insist on a big stack of printed paper. I think that that request should be–and is going to become–a thing of the past.
I had no idea so many people would respond to this. I keep checking back and it’s more and more. I love htmlgiant.
That’s the first one I’ve read! Really dug it.
i laughed at your first comment, but i groaned at your second.
finally ‘got’ Mr. Antipasta joke
Nick, this seems less about digital versus print, track changes versus red pen, and more about the idea that your writing is so great that you are doing your friends and editors a favor by allowing them to read your manuscripts, and that the onus is on them to make whatever adaptations necessary to get that awesome benefit.
WELL NICK FIRST OF ALL YOU ARE ASSUMING A LOT AND USING THAT TO MAKE POINTS IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
FOR INSTANCE YOU ARE NOT MUCH OLDER THAN ZZZZIPP BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCE ZZZIPP HAS USED COMPUTERS “SIGNIFICANTLY” SINCE THE DAY HE COULD MANIPULATE THEM AND BEING THIS “IMMERSED” HAS DONE NOTHING TO IMPROVE “COMPUTER/EYESIGHT/CONTEMPLATION” RELATIONSHIP.
PHM YOU COULD HAVE BEEN MORE AGGRESSIVE. THE iPAD HAS COWED YOU.
Apple will recycle its products for you. There is also the recycle-pawn method: gazelle.con
Nick, there may indeed be a near future where everyone walks everywhere carrying some google or apple reading tablet and future computer screens may be easier to read on and massage your eyes with their lovely glow. I don’t know.
But here, in 2010, when computer screens are annoying to read on long form and most people don’t have whatever overpriced apple product is on the market, if someone is doing you a favor by reading your manuscript it is up to you to get it to them in a form they can read it in, IMHO.
No offense, but I really don’t understand why you can’t believe that some people’s eyes don’t take kindly to long form reading. People react differently to different things. Honestly, my eyes hurt almost every day from excessive computer use. The LAST thing I need is to add another few hours of reading time onto that. In addition, it is much easier to focus on a single thing without a computer tempting me with its emails and news updates and I also do like to go outside or use my subway time to edit a friend’s manuscript and don’t see why I should have to be burdened with carrying a heavy laptop around town when I’m doing someone a favor.
.com
Was that Freudian?
zippy- you sound more agitated than usual. are u ok? is it the solar storms?
The only thing sillier than real luddism are the people who think that every new tech product is automatically superior to anything at already exists. But hey, your money to toss away on silly gizmos.
The oldest professional editor I know (69) has done everything digitally at least since he first gave me an advance in 2006. Interestingly, his company has used Apple products since 1985 or 6–they must be in on the conspiracy.
I feel strongly that it should be about efficiency. The argument against digitization is at its root the same one against hydrogen fuel cells or even more proven alternative energies. The real goal of the argument is not to preserve culture but to preserve certain destructive industries. At one point in time most of my family were dependent on the paper industry. NAFTA sent all that work to Canada. I’m tired of stubborn dogma costing the environment. You are not a special flower, pollution is not your right.
You should invest in something with e-ink. It’s proven to be easier on the eyes than black ink on beige paper.
YOU’RE RIGHT, MIMI. PROBABLY THE SOLAR STORMS. ZZZZIPP NEEDS TO CALM DOWN, TAKE SOME “Z-TIME”.
Because in some twisted way you have, as always, convinced yourself that you have no vested interest in it.
Meanwhile another Colorado forest fades out of existence.
And I mean, those aren’t nearly as important as sentimental bullshit, right?
Openoffice.org smart guy. Do people really still use Word?
where do the batteries go paul?
rest easy little buddy
yes e-ink is a different story than backlit computer screens.
nick,
i would support your saber rattling if you displayed a genuine conviction.
but you don’t.
Personally I find I cam read more in less time with it.
The future remains unwritten. Progress has historically been gradual. Give it time.
haha
what the fuck is wrong with you?
Jereme, I appreciate your characteristic armchair surliness and patronizing persona as much as the next htmlgiant reader, but I couldn’t care less what you have to say about “genuine conviction.” Your whole personality, online and in person, is about belittling things. At some point it all becomes whatever.
TRANSMISSION FROM Z-TIME:
!!!BEGINNING TRANSMISSION!!!
((PHM IF YOU SEND YOUR GOODS OFF TO A MAGIC FACTORY THAT DOESN”T MEAN THEY ARE BEING USED EFFICIENTLY<> <<>> IT AL<>SO DOESN’T ACCOUNT FOR THE REST OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN<>))
!!!END OF TRANSMISSION!!!
Hey thanks. Kinda freaked me out a little though when I saw that story link pop up ten minutes after writing the above. Then I remembered – oh yeah, internet.
Actually, for reading my Sony reader was much better.
Most people who make that to have and to hold argument are just selfish.
I’ll put a Benji on Antosca for the win.
Hey man, all I gotta do is give Al Gore some money, and my wasteful ways are automatically turned into ecological goodwill.
I suppose the only real solution is no solution, then? You’re a closet republican or something. If you have a better idea than gazelle, act on it, or in your world, capitalize on it.
It’s a little crazy to imply that those of us who enjoy reading on e-readers and the like are inhuman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y [this one’s for paul edward cunningham yall]
Don’t be a jerk, Amy. The post is about nothing of the sort. I never ask anyone to print out anything they send me, whether it’s a 20-page short story, a 120-page screenplay, or a 400-page novel, and if for whatever reason I need a paper copy of someone else’s manuscript for something, I print it out myself. It annoys me when people insist on paper copies of manuscripts, from me or anyone else, because the world is changing, and I think that if–because of your eyesight or your fondness for using red pens or your affection for the good old days before all the flashing and blinking lights–you prefer to adhere to the customs of the past, you should shoulder the inconvenience, not force other people around you to do it. There is obviously a lot of chafing against the argument in this post–probably because lots of people here ask for printed manuscript submissions–but if you check back in ten to fifteen years, I am certain that (barring a nuclear or environmental catastrophe so severe we are all living in Mad Max) demands for printed manuscripts will be a rare eccentricity. (But still perhaps considered endearing by some.)
I have a lot to learn
I’ve had periods of severe insomnia in my life. I don’t think they’re related to my use of computers, however; I think they’re related to my disinclination to stick to a regular sleep cycle (most problematic from 2005-2009, when I had a 9-5 job) combined with mild but persistent depression and irregular use of legally prescribed stimulants.
this thread be crackin me up
nick,
i only belittle the things you fail to properly defend but i guess i’m not a worthwhile human being like you. how do i achieve that?
like this thread. how do i do what you did? how do i shit on everything and take no responsibility for it? then how do i tell other people they are “jerks” or worthless for shitting on my idiotic rant?
then how do i do all that without punching myself in the face?
oh and how do i do all the above and then show my true whore colors like in the below comment:
“b) the potential for acceptance/publication is tempting enough for me to suppress my irritation.
But as a general rule, I resist whenever possible.”
“resist whenever possible”
HAHA!
“Printed books are, in most cases, 100% compostable. Not so for an iPad, Kindle, Nook, etc.”
This is true, and I’d be interested to see a detailed breakdown of what happens to a discarded iPad. However, given that iPads, Blackberries, and laptops all exist in prodigious numbers and can’t be made to vanish, an insistence on printing seems irrational and decadent.
What prompted me to make this post–which has clearly touched an unexpected nerve–was a recent visit to a guy’s office… the fellow was telling me about an unpublished novel he’d read, and he offered to give it to me. “I’ll print it out!” he said–this is a ~400 page novel–and I said it would be easier and less wasteful to send me a .pdf or something… but no, he insisted on printing this huge, ridiculous stack of paper for me to take with me. (The novel’s good so far, despite my hatred of huge stacks of paper.) And all over his office were other stacks of paper… screenplays and the like. (A screenplay is *formatted* for easy reading. For *skimming.* Come on.)
And then I thought back to the people who’ve said “Can you print it out?” to me. Some of these people are age 45 or 50+. Okay, fine, I’m not going to object. But some are my age, or younger. And it’s like… my eyes are not superhuman. I wear glasses, and I read *constantly*. I’ve read more novels than I can count off my computer screen. I read at least two, sometimes as many as *twenty-five* screenplays off my computer or phone per week. My eyes don’t ache and I don’t get headaches. And I know that most of the young people who ask for printed copies spend hours and hours a day online, or writing their own stuff on a computer. It just doesn’t seem rational for them to insist on a big stack of printed paper. I think that that request should be–and is going to become–a thing of the past.
I had no idea so many people would respond to this. I keep checking back and it’s more and more. I love htmlgiant.
That’s the first one I’ve read! Really dug it.
i laughed at your first comment, but i groaned at your second.
finally ‘got’ Mr. Antipasta joke
My impression is that you already do shit on everything around you so that you won’t have to punch yourself in the face.
Apple will recycle its products for you. There is also the recycle-pawn method: gazelle.con
No offense, but I really don’t understand why you can’t believe that some people’s eyes don’t take kindly to long form reading. People react differently to different things. Honestly, my eyes hurt almost every day from excessive computer use. The LAST thing I need is to add another few hours of reading time onto that. In addition, it is much easier to focus on a single thing without a computer tempting me with its emails and news updates and I also do like to go outside or use my subway time to edit a friend’s manuscript and don’t see why I should have to be burdened with carrying a heavy laptop around town when I’m doing someone a favor.
.com
Was that Freudian?
The oldest professional editor I know (69) has done everything digitally at least since he first gave me an advance in 2006. Interestingly, his company has used Apple products since 1985 or 6–they must be in on the conspiracy.
I feel strongly that it should be about efficiency. The argument against digitization is at its root the same one against hydrogen fuel cells or even more proven alternative energies. The real goal of the argument is not to preserve culture but to preserve certain destructive industries. At one point in time most of my family were dependent on the paper industry. NAFTA sent all that work to Canada. I’m tired of stubborn dogma costing the environment. You are not a special flower, pollution is not your right.
You should invest in something with e-ink. It’s proven to be easier on the eyes than black ink on beige paper.
Because in some twisted way you have, as always, convinced yourself that you have no vested interest in it.
Meanwhile another Colorado forest fades out of existence.
Umm nick…I’m not sure that you can say that jereme is about belittling things in person because you’ve only met him twice and you didn’t seem to give a shit about trying to get to know him either time. My honest impression of you both times I’ve met you is that you are incredibly selfish and vain. and I actually tried to get to know you—unlike how you immediately came to a negative conclusion about jereme while having a 5 minute discussion about avatar. Avatar DID suck. No need to get butthurt over a dissenting opinion, bro. :)
And I mean, those aren’t nearly as important as sentimental bullshit, right?
Openoffice.org smart guy. Do people really still use Word?
yeah, you are right.
luckily your “impression” will change as my status grows.
keep resisting whenever possible!
where do the batteries go paul?
yes e-ink is a different story than backlit computer screens.
nick,
i would support your saber rattling if you displayed a genuine conviction.
but you don’t.
Personally I find I cam read more in less time with it.
The future remains unwritten. Progress has historically been gradual. Give it time.
What are you talking about? Avatar?
I didn’t come to a negative opinion of either you or your boyfriend when I met you. It’s hardly a stretch to observe that he’s full of anger, talks shit constantly, and calls people by patronizing nicknames. That’s what I mean by belittling. People have personas, and that’s his.
haha
what the fuck is wrong with you?
Jereme, I appreciate your characteristic armchair surliness and patronizing persona as much as the next htmlgiant reader, but I couldn’t care less what you have to say about “genuine conviction.” Your whole personality, online and in person, is about belittling things. At some point it all becomes whatever.
I think he does all those things because the reactions of the uptight and weak are funnnnnnny. I like to watch people get defensive and mean because he pinpoints their insecurities.
TRANSMISSION FROM Z-TIME:
!!!BEGINNING TRANSMISSION!!!
((PHM IF YOU SEND YOUR GOODS OFF TO A MAGIC FACTORY THAT DOESN”T MEAN THEY ARE BEING USED EFFICIENTLY<> <<>> IT AL<>SO DOESN’T ACCOUNT FOR THE REST OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN<>))
!!!END OF TRANSMISSION!!!
id say it was probably just a typo, bro
:)
!!!B. T.!!!
((HUH? SIPPING TEQUILA. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? IS IT NEAR MINE. CAN YOU TRAVEL THERE BY PHOTON? <> LESS CONSUMPTION MEANS LESS ELECTRONIC WASTE! THERE ARE NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS. <> THAT’S ALL. DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE BEACH WITH ME???))
!!!E. OF T!!!
The word “bro” is fun to say in an arab douche accent.
Hey thanks. Kinda freaked me out a little though when I saw that story link pop up ten minutes after writing the above. Then I remembered – oh yeah, internet.
I’ll put a Benji on Antosca for the win.
I suppose the only real solution is no solution, then? You’re a closet republican or something. If you have a better idea than gazelle, act on it, or in your world, capitalize on it.
I have a lot to learn
nick,
i only belittle the things you fail to properly defend but i guess i’m not a worthwhile human being like you. how do i achieve that?
like this thread. how do i do what you did? how do i shit on everything and take no responsibility for it? then how do i tell other people they are “jerks” or worthless for shitting on my idiotic rant?
then how do i do all that without punching myself in the face?
oh and how do i do all the above and then show my true whore colors like in the below comment:
“b) the potential for acceptance/publication is tempting enough for me to suppress my irritation.
But as a general rule, I resist whenever possible.”
“resist whenever possible”
HAHA!
My impression is that you already do shit on everything around you so that you won’t have to punch yourself in the face.
The increase in corrective lenses has nothing to do with worsening eyesight due to eye strain and everything to do with better and cheaper access for people worldwide and in America.
The bad for your eyes thing really is a myth. If it hurts you, it hurts you. That’s fine, and a lot of people agree. But it doesn’t do lasting damage to your eyes. Being able to focus up close see up close is an ability that gets worse with age regardless of activity, which is why people wear reading glasses. You don’t generally sit closer to a computer monitor than you do a book.
Umm nick…I’m not sure that you can say that jereme is about belittling things in person because you’ve only met him twice and you didn’t seem to give a shit about trying to get to know him either time. My honest impression of you both times I’ve met you is that you are incredibly selfish and vain. and I actually tried to get to know you—unlike how you immediately came to a negative conclusion about jereme while having a 5 minute discussion about avatar. Avatar DID suck. No need to get butthurt over a dissenting opinion, bro. :)
yeah, you are right.
luckily your “impression” will change as my status grows.
keep resisting whenever possible!
What are you talking about? Avatar?
I didn’t come to a negative opinion of either you or your boyfriend when I met you. It’s hardly a stretch to observe that he’s full of anger, talks shit constantly, and calls people by patronizing nicknames. That’s what I mean by belittling. People have personas, and that’s his.
I think he does all those things because the reactions of the uptight and weak are funnnnnnny. I like to watch people get defensive and mean because he pinpoints their insecurities.
id say it was probably just a typo, bro
:)
!!!B. T.!!!
((HUH? SIPPING TEQUILA. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? IS IT NEAR MINE. CAN YOU TRAVEL THERE BY PHOTON? <> LESS CONSUMPTION MEANS LESS ELECTRONIC WASTE! THERE ARE NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS. <> THAT’S ALL. DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE BEACH WITH ME???))
!!!E. OF T!!!
The word “bro” is fun to say in an arab douche accent.
The increase in corrective lenses has nothing to do with worsening eyesight due to eye strain and everything to do with better and cheaper access for people worldwide and in America.
The bad for your eyes thing really is a myth. If it hurts you, it hurts you. That’s fine, and a lot of people agree. But it doesn’t do lasting damage to your eyes. Being able to focus up close see up close is an ability that gets worse with age regardless of activity, which is why people wear reading glasses. You don’t generally sit closer to a computer monitor than you do a book.
Easy. The most environmentally damaging thing to do is create another human being, which can be assumed to be just as destructive and consumptive as I am. I get half the credit for the non-existence of the child, and the not-mother gets the other. Assuming that two kids is the norm, I could dump 3 gallons of gas into the parking lot every time I fill up, and still be ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Google_Making_Us_Stupid%3F
Good references.
See, if you read real books, your sarcasm might actually be funny.
What’s the mission, phm?
Who’s “we”/not-“we”?
Are you sure there’s a race?
Now : Reality :: Reality : Cyborg? I respectfully disagree.
Truth comes through honest reflection. Honesty requires a clear lens. Sleep is a lens cleaner.
I never lie. I’m a writer!
(The iPad does seem kinda cool, but my girlfriend thinks the unconventional keyboard might be a problem. Don’t you just get used to the typing method?)
Not inhuman, Roxane. But definitely cyborg. Half-human/half-machine. Look at us as a culture. How many waking hours do we spend hot-wired to machines? Which in turn extend our waking hours hot-wired to machines…. If that’s not cyborg, I don’t know what it is. Then look at our capacity for kindness, patience and intimacy… direct loving connection to each other. I know people who text each other in the same room. Do you really think those same people connect deeply on an intimate level? I would argue NOPE.
Not according to what I’ve read Ben, or what Nick posted.
Easy. The most environmentally damaging thing to do is create another human being, which can be assumed to be just as destructive and consumptive as I am. I get half the credit for the non-existence of the child, and the not-mother gets the other. Assuming that two kids is the norm, I could dump 3 gallons of gas into the parking lot every time I fill up, and still be ahead.
Agreed, Lincoln. Either extreme is extremely silly. True confession: I don’t have a cellphone b/c I don’t *need* one and I’d rather save hundreds or thousands of dollars a year. When I’m out and about, I’d rather take in the sights and sounds, immerse myself in being in the world. Plus, the reception, from what I’ve seen/heard, is far less reliable than a landline. I don’t have an iPod b/c I’m a music junkie and I play enough music at home and in the car and I also see enough shows that I don’t want to be walking around w/ my ears plugged up with more music when I can be interacting w/ the environment. Music is in my blood. As far as watching videos on those tiny screens or playing games or constantly checking email while on the road… that’s just silly.
I’d bet they’re all interrelated, Nick. For sure, regular sleep cycles are key, but those flickering screens do amp us up to the point where they mess w/ our ability to sleep regularly. I forget how, exactly, but it has something to do with turning on your brain to the point where it can’t just power down when you turn away from the screen. I think that’s why doctors argue for short breaks every 20 – 30 minutes when on the computer and not being on a computer at least two hours before sleep. It also depends on how your brain is wired, I guess. On late work nights, I go until exhaustion and by then I sleep like a rock or a man that’s dead — even in front of a beaming monitor.
Per the original point of your post, I’m with you. It’s inconvenient and expensive, sending out paper manuscripts or being required to use the whole outdated SASE scam. (You know they’re stealing our stamps!) But speaking for myself, I just can’t read a complete manuscript on the computer, unless, of course, the book is mine and I’m going sloooowly word-by-word and making changes along the way. In truth, I’ll alternate between computer and paper reads/edits. I’ve found that I see/read differently — more accurately — when on the page. Know what I mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Google_Making_Us_Stupid%3F
Good references.
See, if you read real books, your sarcasm might actually be funny.
If I’m doing a lot of typing with it, I just attach my bluetooth keyboard.
They’re still going to produce stuff, even if it’s not purchased. The stuff is still going to ship to stores, and when it doesn’t sell, will ship back. Consumption at least puts the stuff to work. That’s not really the part of the process that destroys the environment, in my opinion, not to mention that it’s much harder to regulate. I think it’s better to regulate the production and disposal processes as much as possible while at the same time making them both less costly and more efficient. Sounds like a much taller order than it really is, and it’d take a government with some teeth to accomplish such a thing.
The point is that reading with a backlight is not the problem. Persistent focusing up close at a young age might make some changes, but it’s the distance of focusing that makes this difference. Becoming nearsighted just means your eyes have been “over”-trained to see up close versus far. In the end, you’re no more likely to hold a book further away than an ipad.
The common wisdom your ophthalmologist would give you is the only one that matters: take frequent breaks and focus on something far away. Screen/versus paper is irrelevant for long term damage.
Yes, I said that above.
What’s the mission, phm?
Who’s “we”/not-“we”?
Are you sure there’s a race?
Now : Reality :: Reality : Cyborg? I respectfully disagree.
Truth comes through honest reflection. Honesty requires a clear lens. Sleep is a lens cleaner.
I never lie. I’m a writer!
(The iPad does seem kinda cool, but my girlfriend thinks the unconventional keyboard might be a problem. Don’t you just get used to the typing method?)
Not inhuman, Roxane. But definitely cyborg. Half-human/half-machine. Look at us as a culture. How many waking hours do we spend hot-wired to machines? Which in turn extend our waking hours hot-wired to machines…. If that’s not cyborg, I don’t know what it is. Then look at our capacity for kindness, patience and intimacy… direct loving connection to each other. I know people who text each other in the same room. Do you really think those same people connect deeply on an intimate level? I would argue NOPE.
Not according to what I’ve read Ben, or what Nick posted.
Agreed, Lincoln. Either extreme is extremely silly. True confession: I don’t have a cellphone b/c I don’t *need* one and I’d rather save hundreds or thousands of dollars a year. When I’m out and about, I’d rather take in the sights and sounds, immerse myself in being in the world. Plus, the reception, from what I’ve seen/heard, is far less reliable than a landline. I don’t have an iPod b/c I’m a music junkie and I play enough music at home and in the car and I also see enough shows that I don’t want to be walking around w/ my ears plugged up with more music when I can be interacting w/ the environment. Music is in my blood. As far as watching videos on those tiny screens or playing games or constantly checking email while on the road… that’s just silly.
I’d bet they’re all interrelated, Nick. For sure, regular sleep cycles are key, but those flickering screens do amp us up to the point where they mess w/ our ability to sleep regularly. I forget how, exactly, but it has something to do with turning on your brain to the point where it can’t just power down when you turn away from the screen. I think that’s why doctors argue for short breaks every 20 – 30 minutes when on the computer and not being on a computer at least two hours before sleep. It also depends on how your brain is wired, I guess. On late work nights, I go until exhaustion and by then I sleep like a rock or a man that’s dead — even in front of a beaming monitor.
Per the original point of your post, I’m with you. It’s inconvenient and expensive, sending out paper manuscripts or being required to use the whole outdated SASE scam. (You know they’re stealing our stamps!) But speaking for myself, I just can’t read a complete manuscript on the computer, unless, of course, the book is mine and I’m going sloooowly word-by-word and making changes along the way. In truth, I’ll alternate between computer and paper reads/edits. I’ve found that I see/read differently — more accurately — when on the page. Know what I mean?
If I’m doing a lot of typing with it, I just attach my bluetooth keyboard.
They’re still going to produce stuff, even if it’s not purchased. The stuff is still going to ship to stores, and when it doesn’t sell, will ship back. Consumption at least puts the stuff to work. That’s not really the part of the process that destroys the environment, in my opinion, not to mention that it’s much harder to regulate. I think it’s better to regulate the production and disposal processes as much as possible while at the same time making them both less costly and more efficient. Sounds like a much taller order than it really is, and it’d take a government with some teeth to accomplish such a thing.
The point is that reading with a backlight is not the problem. Persistent focusing up close at a young age might make some changes, but it’s the distance of focusing that makes this difference. Becoming nearsighted just means your eyes have been “over”-trained to see up close versus far. In the end, you’re no more likely to hold a book further away than an ipad.
The common wisdom your ophthalmologist would give you is the only one that matters: take frequent breaks and focus on something far away. Screen/versus paper is irrelevant for long term damage.
Yes, I said that above.
ahhh… bluetooth. that’s one o’ them thar techno gadgets, eh?
Yeah. For me it’s mostly a replacement for the everyday stuff that my computer used to serve for, plus it replaced my television. I still use my computer for the big stuff, of course, like designing things or doing lots of typing and what not. I think my computer is going to have a much longer career thanks to the iPad, so financially I convince myself that I made a wise decision. For instance, today was the first time I turned on the computer since Monday.
ahhh… bluetooth. that’s one o’ them thar techno gadgets, eh?
You might like this, Nick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMf7FWGdCw&feature=player_embedded
Yeah. For me it’s mostly a replacement for the everyday stuff that my computer used to serve for, plus it replaced my television. I still use my computer for the big stuff, of course, like designing things or doing lots of typing and what not. I think my computer is going to have a much longer career thanks to the iPad, so financially I convince myself that I made a wise decision. For instance, today was the first time I turned on the computer since Monday.
You might like this, Nick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMf7FWGdCw&feature=player_embedded
At least you’re not masking your argument. At least you’re admitting that you are selfish.
“I just like burning gasoline. I like it. It makes me happy. I like using cars. These are things I like.”
If there’s one thing I’m certain of (re: this entire thread) it’s that AVATAR DID SUCK and was one of the most incredibly hackneyed / racist films I’ve seen in a long time.
Aside from the Blind Side, of course.
I don’t think I should have called it a “film” either.
Movie . . . we’ll call it a “movie”
At least you’re not masking your argument. At least you’re admitting that you are selfish.
“I just like burning gasoline. I like it. It makes me happy. I like using cars. These are things I like.”
If there’s one thing I’m certain of (re: this entire thread) it’s that AVATAR DID SUCK and was one of the most incredibly hackneyed / racist films I’ve seen in a long time.
Aside from the Blind Side, of course.
I don’t think I should have called it a “film” either.
Movie . . . we’ll call it a “movie”
Paper is, arguably, a lot less wasteful than using digital media, in many cases. The strip-mining that provides the coal that fuels the plant that keeps your desktop running (or charges your iPad, Blackberry, etc.), is far more destructive to forests and the environment than paper, which is recyclable, and if you are smart about it, recycled already by the time you buy it. Plus, the forestry industry in general has a lot better record on the environment than coal miners/utility companies/data centers like Google; just ask Greenpeace (http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/green-computing/vendor-watch/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsId=19661). Other arguments aside, the statement that using paper is inherently more wasteful than blowing untold kilowatt hours to keep your screen lit up is just sloppy environmentalism.
Paper is the least of our worries, planetarily speaking.
See this great article from PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/03/is-digital-media-worse-for-the-environment-than-print090.html
Paper is, arguably, a lot less wasteful than using digital media, in many cases. The strip-mining that provides the coal that fuels the plant that keeps your desktop running (or charges your iPad, Blackberry, etc.), is far more destructive to forests and the environment than paper, which is recyclable, and if you are smart about it, recycled already by the time you buy it. Plus, the forestry industry in general has a lot better record on the environment than coal miners/utility companies/data centers like Google; just ask Greenpeace (http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/green-computing/vendor-watch/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsId=19661). Other arguments aside, the statement that using paper is inherently more wasteful than blowing untold kilowatt hours to keep your screen lit up is just sloppy environmentalism.
Paper is the least of our worries, planetarily speaking.
See this great article from PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/03/is-digital-media-worse-for-the-environment-than-print090.html
YES THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING UP
MAYBE BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT OVERCONSUMPTION IS A MAJOR CULPRIT
WHY DOES APPLE SEND ZZZIPPP INVITATION TO PURCHASE THEIR “NEW, AMAZING” COMPUTER SIX MONTHS AFTER ZZZZIPP HAS PURCHASED OLDER MODEL. ZZZZIPP IS STILL DIGESTING ORIGINAL PURCHASE. MAYBE THIS MODEL WILL LAST ZZZZIPP FOR YEARS. WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY (BUT SLOWER TECHNOLOGICALLY MAYBE) IF COMPUTER WAS BUILT TO LAST 20 YEARS/INDEFINITELY, NOT 4-5 ZZZZIPP WILL LIKELY GET OUT OF IT.
YES THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING UP
MAYBE BUT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT OVERCONSUMPTION IS A MAJOR CULPRIT
WHY DOES APPLE SEND ZZZIPPP INVITATION TO PURCHASE THEIR “NEW, AMAZING” COMPUTER SIX MONTHS AFTER ZZZZIPP HAS PURCHASED OLDER MODEL. ZZZZIPP IS STILL DIGESTING ORIGINAL PURCHASE. MAYBE THIS MODEL WILL LAST ZZZZIPP FOR YEARS. WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY (BUT SLOWER TECHNOLOGICALLY MAYBE) IF COMPUTER WAS BUILT TO LAST 20 YEARS/INDEFINITELY, NOT 4-5 ZZZZIPP WILL LIKELY GET OUT OF IT.
[…] And this is where I question things. I have a story in BoTW. I publish on the web. I like publishing on the web, I really do. But I also like paper. Yummm, wasteful unsustainable paper: I can’t get enough of it. I love to print out manuscripts. I love to mark up manuscripts. I even love how heavy it is in my bag, how much space it takes up, and on and on. I love books published on paper, bound in paper, I probably don’t need to go on. Needless to say, I’m not as “with the times” as Nick. […]
Kevin Spaide deserves a book contract.
Kevin Spaide deserves a book contract.
I don’t know who you are, john carney, but I think I love you a little.
I don’t know who you are, john carney, but I think I love you a little.