Uncategorized
Ideal literary mediums
Most contributors, it would seem via FB—because that’s how I get a lot of my non-news news—of the Best of the Web 2010 anthology have gotten their contributor copies. I have not yet, so I can’t make any testaments to how great or not great it is. I’m pretty sure, given that Kathy Fish and Matt Bell are the editors, that it’s a stunning collection of writing originally published on the web.
This past week, Time Out Chicago reviewed BoTW 2010. Though quite brief, Jonathan Messinger gave it a positive review, noting how difficult anthologies are and the unimaginable task of combing through the seemingly self-exponentiating number of things published on the web. He ended with this:
Of course, we all know the Internet is home to just about anything our brains can Google. But what Best of the Web does—aside from doing the work of finding great writing so we don’t have to—is make a case for it as an ideal literary medium.
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.
But am I completely missing the move literature is taking? Am I, in my insistence on paper, my fetishization of paper—and please know that I do fetishize the printed book, it’s a personal flaw I’m willing to accept—willfully making myself blind to the web as an “ideal literary medium”?
And not to pick on this reviewer but how many other literary mediums are there? There’s the web/eReaders and paper.
But back to the web as “an ideal literary medium”: I don’t have an eReader, though I’ve been considering the possibility. Anything I read from the web, I read on my laptop. I have a nice enough laptop. But I can’t read anything longer than a few pages at a time on it. Or rather: I refuse to read anything longer than a few pages on it. It hurts my eyes. Or it’s straining. Or maybe it’s just in my head. Whereas I can waste hours at a time playing stupid games, checking FB and blogs and the NYTimes, on my computer—and logically speaking, I can understand how that too must strain my eyes—I don’t read much else on it. If something is more than a few pages long, I’ll print it out. I can barely make myself read long blog posts or streams of comments. It’s in my head, yes, I know that.
(And gee, this almost goes without saying, but this is a collection of the web’s “best” that is then printed on paper. Nor is this the first anthology of this sort, nor will it be the last. In no way do I mean this as a criticism of BoTW or any other anthology of this sort. Just a necessary nod, that’s all.)
I have to admit getting older. I’m becoming more and more obsolete by the day. My nephew, who is six, already has an eReader. My god-daughter, who is seven, has her own laptop. The way things are moving, I don’t think the web is “an ideal literary medium,” I’m fearful that it’s trending towards becoming THE ideal literary medium, and there’s nothing I can do about it but watch, mournful, knowing that one day, I’ll tell my great-great grandchild that back in the day, I published books, with pages and ink, and she’ll know what I mean because libraries will still exist, but she’ll probably also think I’m a crazy old loon. I’ll be backwards. Kind of like how we think a lot of old people are backwards—maybe backwards is a bit extreme—because they can’t navigate a computer, something we grew up with and has become some extension of our socialization, in many cases, our computers become part of our personality because of our dependence on the relationships built through virtual networks, like this one right here.
Think generations from now: paper will be phased out, ePlatforms will become cheaper and more convenient. I’d hate to admit it, but yeah, I’m behind. And I’m probably going to remain behind, willfully, “in the last century,” as Nick berated. Whereas I don’t think ePlatforms or the web will be the death books, I am worried of that almost inevitable movement from indefinite to a definite article in regards to the web as “ideal literary platform.”
I’m about as on-the-fence about this as humanly possible. I’d much rather read a hard copy than a website, but the more I try thing I’m more willing to believe the web is a viable (but not ideal–nothing is ideal) literary medium. I think it comes down to personal preference, and I’m just not there yet.
Here’s a barely-related question: does anyone that’s farsighted have an issue with reading longer works on the web? I’m in the same anti-ePlatform camp as many, but I think it has more to do with my eyesight than anything else. I don’t have glare protection on my glasses, and I wonder if that’s where the strain I feel is coming from.
There’s definitely something to be said for the physicality of the book, the book as an object you go out and find somewhere and bring home. I’ve always loved trawling through chaotic used bookstores, and that’s something you don’t get to do with your e-reader. And half the time you buy a book in one of those places it’s got somebody else’s name or telephone number in it, or circled words, or comments in the margin. Maybe a 70’s style cover. Bus tranfers or shopping receipts between the pages. And I usually remember where and when I buy a book, which somehow adds a new layer to the whole thing. So, yeah, I guess I fetishize physical books as well. But I also read tons of online writing and have discovered a lot of great writers through the internet that I never would have read otherwise. I read online almost everyday, and yet I still read the same number of physical books as I ever have. Which I guess means I’m reading even more with the internet. I probably won’t be getting an e-reader anytime soon, though. Maybe someday. If books ever became as rare as letter-writing post e-mail (which I don’t think will happen) I’d still keep my dusty old paperbacks. I mean, it’s not one or the other, is it? As for other literary media, there was that story that was tattooed word by word on thousands of different people’s bodies. Or did I hallucinate that.
Also: I wonder if Messinger considers eReaders as a different entity than web journals. Am I right in assuming that most of the stories in BoTW aren’t available on the Kindle or Nook?
(and please excuse the wacky syntax of that second sentence)
Shelley Jackson did that. Yes, that’s true. I originally put a few sentences to account for other mediums, like skin, but I took them out. Mostly because it’s not really something that can be mass accessed. Shelley hasn’t even seen all the words, at least not together, though the project is still going. I read with her in March and she said still has 300 words left or so, she wasn’t really sure.
I mostly read shorter stuff online, though I’ve read and enjoyed novels on my laptop. That said, if I’d had the choice to read those novels as books, I’d have turned off the laptop and gone outside with the book.
This is kind of unrelated but very interesting: Finland has made broadband internet access a “legal right,” as in every citizen of Finland must be provided high speed internet. This is crazy. Here’s the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10461048.stm
Tthe death of paper isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen. While MP3s are decimating CD sales, the same is not happening with ebooks and paper books. I used to believe that books were in danger, but there is no evidence of it.
Also, the idea that computers/ebook readers/”smart” phones/etcetera are more “sustainable” than books is ridiculous, as electronics like that require plastic and rare metals. Every time we see a computer, we should think of Coltan mines.
I would love to see an article called ‘Reading Kindles in the Congo’.
Scandinavian countries have to do a lot of weird shit to keep their populaces from committing mass suicide every winter.
I’ll concede to you on that point. I could barely survive winter in Indiana.
I spend most of the day on the computer. I’d really prefer to read my stories on paper, if possible.
Books aren’t going anywhere. The internet and other kinds of e-reading are additions to paper, not replacements. It’s not an either/or proposition, no matter how many times people try to make it into one. We had books and newspapers and print magazines, and now we have those things PLUS the internet, e-readers, cell phones, etc. That’s got to be a good thing for people like us, who care deeply about writing and reading, who would do it all day if we could.
I guess I’m not threatened by the fact that the things I interact with to do my work–my computer, my phone, etc., all the tools of my daily drudgery–are also tools by which I can access fiction. That’s a liberation, not an attack on all I hold dear. I mean, when I read a story on my phone, I hardly think it means I’m giving up on books. Clearly, a look around my house would suggest anything but.
I also continue to believe that the argument that “I don’t like reading on the computer, so it must be wrong” is incredibly weak–it’s just an argument from personal experience, that doesn’t necessarily bear on anyone else–but it shows up in every article and post of this type. My personal experiences are different, but that doesn’t make them valid either. If there’s a case to be made here, it’s got to be based on something stronger than that.
Long story short: It’s not like people are trying to stop you from reading books, right? They’re not forcing you to stare at a computer screen to get your fiction fix. So then who cares? Go read wherever you want to read, in whatever format you want.
(especially long ones.) I also like having the books take up physical space in my house. Then I pass them, look at the spines, and think about what’s inside, and sometimes pick one up and flip through it, get interested, reread it, etc. That’s a part of my life I’d lose if all my books were on a Kindle. It’d be a loss comparable to what happened when my favorite library closed its stacks, or when the encyclopedias went to CD-ROM instead of forty-volume hardcover sets. There’s one kind of browsing you can do on a computer, but there’s another you do by walking around and looking at things and touching things and making associations based on adjacencies and lucky juxtapositions. Something is being lost in our intellectual culture, and it’s something good that’s being lost.
This isn’t an anti-computer or anti-Internet or anti-technology tirade. I’m happy to have these things. I just don’t want to lose the other things.
The main problem I have with reading longish text on my laptop is not the screen/brightness/font etc issues but the scrolling up and down. The moving of the text up and down as I read/reread/word-hug makes me kinda nauseous. It’s the scrolling.
Hey Matt: We’ve talked about this quite extensively, so you know that I don’t think it’s wrong in any way to use other mediums to read, just that I don’t do it. Sadly, it makes me feel “behind the times.” Eventually, yeah, I’ll probably invest in an iPad.
And I do think books will slowly go away, or at least mainstream lit fiction will. It won’t be immediate but it’s something that will probably happen within a handful of generations, hopefully more.
I like to read the stories on television. Television provides the best stories. That’s what I like about the computer. It’s like a little television. But it’s better than television because you can put yourself on it. If the show’s no good, you can cancel yourself. Think of something else. Then put on another show. Writing is like that. It’s like putting on a show. It can be serious or sad or meaningful or weird but it’s like a show. That’s what the computer has done. It has made things more like television in which your greatness, your writing’s greatness, is dependent on its popularity. So, like television, if your writing is not popular, then it is not great. And you get less sponsors. Sometimes, when things get really bad, you have to start again. Come up with a new idea, a new show. Or listen to the corporate executives (i.e. editors) and the audience (i.e. critics). They always know how to make a show sell (i.e. popular). Keith Nathan Brown and Susana Mai are helping me to become popular (i.e. important) by working with me to help make one of my stories great. Someday, I will be on television.
i think the idea of ideal is where. and i wouldnt take messinger’s message as having something to do with the physicality of the internet as amedium, but rather what tends to germinate there, that occasionally germs are gems, and if there is a good enough germ collector slash gem separater, a best of germ collection has the ability to surprise those who think of the potential of germs as merely viruses and not idea worms instead of standing water lullaby freight boat fuckers.
Your comment made me sneeze. Agreed.
I like going up and down, even as I read.
Print is dead! I like like real books. The internet is free. People in China read your blog! I am poor. I write for money. Print is dead! Write about products. Make yourself a product. Buy shares in Zizek. I’m wearing a pink hoodie on my old college I.D. card. There is this song I like. I am influential. I have buying power! Where is the pirate party? I want my tvshack!
I’m with you here, Kyle. I’m constantly surrounded by piles and piles of books, and that’s a big part of my daily life, interacting with them in pieces and in wholes. But hell, I’ve got a Kindle and an iPhone and three computers, etc., etc. That doesn’t stop my computers from being surrounded by open books.
The other day, I took a break from reading my Kindle to look something up in a book, which then made be want to google something, which I did on my laptop. They were technologies working together, not competing.
But… hardcover fiction sales are up from last year: http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/bookselling/adult_hardcover_sales_rose_49_percent_in_april_164848.asp
And Ebook sales are very small compared to paper book sales. They are a long way from being even 20% of total book sales.
I agree with Matt. Print isn’t going anywhere. I really dislike the “either/or” arguments and the “print is dying oh no” arguments, because the former is inaccurate and the latter is just false. The Internet (e-books, online journals, etc) is a lovely addition, not a rival in some literary juggernaut. I love, love, love reading online journals, e-books, online literary blogs like this one, but I read just as much print as I did before. I find both mediums to be invaluable to my life as a writer and a reader. Example: I discovered Claudia Smith online. I read a few stories of hers in online lit journals, loved them, and bought Put Your Head in My Lap as a result. The tactile thrill of holding her chapbook in my hands would be impossible without the Internet. So for me, these mediums are not only invaluable, but they work together. They compliment each other.
I’m about as on-the-fence about this as humanly possible. I’d much rather read a hard copy than a website, but the more I try thing I’m more willing to believe the web is a viable (but not ideal–nothing is ideal) literary medium. I think it comes down to personal preference, and I’m just not there yet.
Here’s a barely-related question: does anyone that’s farsighted have an issue with reading longer works on the web? I’m in the same anti-ePlatform camp as many, but I think it has more to do with my eyesight than anything else. I don’t have glare protection on my glasses, and I wonder if that’s where the strain I feel is coming from.
There’s definitely something to be said for the physicality of the book, the book as an object you go out and find somewhere and bring home. I’ve always loved trawling through chaotic used bookstores, and that’s something you don’t get to do with your e-reader. And half the time you buy a book in one of those places it’s got somebody else’s name or telephone number in it, or circled words, or comments in the margin. Maybe a 70’s style cover. Bus tranfers or shopping receipts between the pages. And I usually remember where and when I buy a book, which somehow adds a new layer to the whole thing. So, yeah, I guess I fetishize physical books as well. But I also read tons of online writing and have discovered a lot of great writers through the internet that I never would have read otherwise. I read online almost everyday, and yet I still read the same number of physical books as I ever have. Which I guess means I’m reading even more with the internet. I probably won’t be getting an e-reader anytime soon, though. Maybe someday. If books ever became as rare as letter-writing post e-mail (which I don’t think will happen) I’d still keep my dusty old paperbacks. I mean, it’s not one or the other, is it? As for other literary media, there was that story that was tattooed word by word on thousands of different people’s bodies. Or did I hallucinate that.
Also: I wonder if Messinger considers eReaders as a different entity than web journals. Am I right in assuming that most of the stories in BoTW aren’t available on the Kindle or Nook?
(and please excuse the wacky syntax of that second sentence)
Shelley Jackson did that. Yes, that’s true. I originally put a few sentences to account for other mediums, like skin, but I took them out. Mostly because it’s not really something that can be mass accessed. Shelley hasn’t even seen all the words, at least not together, though the project is still going. I read with her in March and she said still has 300 words left or so, she wasn’t really sure.
I mostly read shorter stuff online, though I’ve read and enjoyed novels on my laptop. That said, if I’d had the choice to read those novels as books, I’d have turned off the laptop and gone outside with the book.
Print is still, in every aspect but reproducibility and storage capacity, the superior technology. There are plenty of books out there which are still legible/functional after centuries and I doubt that any digital-storage format you’re using today (including your e-readers) will be functional twenty years from now. Any durable, lightweight technology powered only by ambient light and the energy within the human body is still the standard to beat.
This is kind of unrelated but very interesting: Finland has made broadband internet access a “legal right,” as in every citizen of Finland must be provided high speed internet. This is crazy. Here’s the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10461048.stm
“Every time we see a computer, we should think of Coltan mines.I would love to see an article called ‘Reading Kindles in the Congo’.
This guy has some info to bring! Bravo (Internet disclaimer: this is not sarcasm). When people call their “smart” phones and their i-brators (or whatever) “green”, I laugh until I cough blood.
Tthe death of paper isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen. While MP3s are decimating CD sales, the same is not happening with ebooks and paper books. I used to believe that books were in danger, but there is no evidence of it.
Also, the idea that computers/ebook readers/”smart” phones/etcetera are more “sustainable” than books is ridiculous, as electronics like that require plastic and rare metals. Every time we see a computer, we should think of Coltan mines.
I would love to see an article called ‘Reading Kindles in the Congo’.
Scandinavian countries have to do a lot of weird shit to keep their populaces from committing mass suicide every winter.
I’ll concede to you on that point. I could barely survive winter in Indiana.
I spend most of the day on the computer. I’d really prefer to read my stories on paper, if possible.
Books aren’t going anywhere. The internet and other kinds of e-reading are additions to paper, not replacements. It’s not an either/or proposition, no matter how many times people try to make it into one. We had books and newspapers and print magazines, and now we have those things PLUS the internet, e-readers, cell phones, etc. That’s got to be a good thing for people like us, who care deeply about writing and reading, who would do it all day if we could.
I guess I’m not threatened by the fact that the things I interact with to do my work–my computer, my phone, etc., all the tools of my daily drudgery–are also tools by which I can access fiction. That’s a liberation, not an attack on all I hold dear. I mean, when I read a story on my phone, I hardly think it means I’m giving up on books. Clearly, a look around my house would suggest anything but.
I also continue to believe that the argument that “I don’t like reading on the computer, so it must be wrong” is incredibly weak–it’s just an argument from personal experience, that doesn’t necessarily bear on anyone else–but it shows up in every article and post of this type. My personal experiences are different, but that doesn’t make them valid either. If there’s a case to be made here, it’s got to be based on something stronger than that.
Long story short: It’s not like people are trying to stop you from reading books, right? They’re not forcing you to stare at a computer screen to get your fiction fix. So then who cares? Go read wherever you want to read, in whatever format you want.
(especially long ones.) I also like having the books take up physical space in my house. Then I pass them, look at the spines, and think about what’s inside, and sometimes pick one up and flip through it, get interested, reread it, etc. That’s a part of my life I’d lose if all my books were on a Kindle. It’d be a loss comparable to what happened when my favorite library closed its stacks, or when the encyclopedias went to CD-ROM instead of forty-volume hardcover sets. There’s one kind of browsing you can do on a computer, but there’s another you do by walking around and looking at things and touching things and making associations based on adjacencies and lucky juxtapositions. Something is being lost in our intellectual culture, and it’s something good that’s being lost.
This isn’t an anti-computer or anti-Internet or anti-technology tirade. I’m happy to have these things. I just don’t want to lose the other things.
The main problem I have with reading longish text on my laptop is not the screen/brightness/font etc issues but the scrolling up and down. The moving of the text up and down as I read/reread/word-hug makes me kinda nauseous. It’s the scrolling.
Hey Matt: We’ve talked about this quite extensively, so you know that I don’t think it’s wrong in any way to use other mediums to read, just that I don’t do it. Sadly, it makes me feel “behind the times.” Eventually, yeah, I’ll probably invest in an iPad.
And I do think books will slowly go away, or at least mainstream lit fiction will. It won’t be immediate but it’s something that will probably happen within a handful of generations, hopefully more.
I like to read the stories on television. Television provides the best stories. That’s what I like about the computer. It’s like a little television. But it’s better than television because you can put yourself on it. If the show’s no good, you can cancel yourself. Think of something else. Then put on another show. Writing is like that. It’s like putting on a show. It can be serious or sad or meaningful or weird but it’s like a show. That’s what the computer has done. It has made things more like television in which your greatness, your writing’s greatness, is dependent on its popularity. So, like television, if your writing is not popular, then it is not great. And you get less sponsors. Sometimes, when things get really bad, you have to start again. Come up with a new idea, a new show. Or listen to the corporate executives (i.e. editors) and the audience (i.e. critics). They always know how to make a show sell (i.e. popular). Keith Nathan Brown and Susana Mai are helping me to become popular (i.e. important) by working with me to help make one of my stories great. Someday, I will be on television.
i think the idea of ideal is where. and i wouldnt take messinger’s message as having something to do with the physicality of the internet as amedium, but rather what tends to germinate there, that occasionally germs are gems, and if there is a good enough germ collector slash gem separater, a best of germ collection has the ability to surprise those who think of the potential of germs as merely viruses and not idea worms instead of standing water lullaby freight boat fuckers.
Your comment made me sneeze. Agreed.
I like going up and down, even as I read.
Print is dead! I like like real books. The internet is free. People in China read your blog! I am poor. I write for money. Print is dead! Write about products. Make yourself a product. Buy shares in Zizek. I’m wearing a pink hoodie on my old college I.D. card. There is this song I like. I am influential. I have buying power! Where is the pirate party? I want my tvshack!
I’m with you here, Kyle. I’m constantly surrounded by piles and piles of books, and that’s a big part of my daily life, interacting with them in pieces and in wholes. But hell, I’ve got a Kindle and an iPhone and three computers, etc., etc. That doesn’t stop my computers from being surrounded by open books.
The other day, I took a break from reading my Kindle to look something up in a book, which then made be want to google something, which I did on my laptop. They were technologies working together, not competing.
But… hardcover fiction sales are up from last year: http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/bookselling/adult_hardcover_sales_rose_49_percent_in_april_164848.asp
And Ebook sales are very small compared to paper book sales. They are a long way from being even 20% of total book sales.
People still write by hand and own a computer too.
This is why guns need to remain illegal in Chicago.
I’m not anti-technology! Though yes, like Sean said above, I’m one of those people who does write by hand and own a computer. But, but I love technology. I live by email. I check this website and others like 15 million times a day. I read tons of online journals every day. I read submissions online. Geez, when I was in Vietnam this past year, I couldn’t check my email for days and days. I thought I would crazy.
I just love print and paper. I think other mediums are important and valuable. I think more options are good, as long as they don’t make the old options obsolete. I think indie press in particular is going to keep print relevant. Bigger presses will move more and more towards the cheaper alternative (eBooks, etc), but there will always be people who love books. The physicality of it. I will be one of those people, but I will also be able to appreciate other platforms as they become available.
(rimshot.)
(also, i’m pretty sure you can do something with the word “rimshot.”)
I agree with Matt. Print isn’t going anywhere. I really dislike the “either/or” arguments and the “print is dying oh no” arguments, because the former is inaccurate and the latter is just false. The Internet (e-books, online journals, etc) is a lovely addition, not a rival in some literary juggernaut. I love, love, love reading online journals, e-books, online literary blogs like this one, but I read just as much print as I did before. I find both mediums to be invaluable to my life as a writer and a reader. Example: I discovered Claudia Smith online. I read a few stories of hers in online lit journals, loved them, and bought Put Your Head in My Lap as a result. The tactile thrill of holding her chapbook in my hands would be impossible without the Internet. So for me, these mediums are not only invaluable, but they work together. They compliment each other.
Print is still, in every aspect but reproducibility and storage capacity, the superior technology. There are plenty of books out there which are still legible/functional after centuries and I doubt that any digital-storage format you’re using today (including your e-readers) will be functional twenty years from now. Any durable, lightweight technology powered only by ambient light and the energy within the human body is still the standard to beat.
“Every time we see a computer, we should think of Coltan mines.I would love to see an article called ‘Reading Kindles in the Congo’.
This guy has some info to bring! Bravo (Internet disclaimer: this is not sarcasm). When people call their “smart” phones and their i-brators (or whatever) “green”, I laugh until I cough blood.
“My nephew, who is six, already has an eReader. My god-daughter, who is seven, has her own laptop.”
I’m pretty sure that’s not the norm.
People still write by hand and own a computer too.
This is why guns need to remain illegal in Chicago.
I’m not anti-technology! Though yes, like Sean said above, I’m one of those people who does write by hand and own a computer. But, but I love technology. I live by email. I check this website and others like 15 million times a day. I read tons of online journals every day. I read submissions online. Geez, when I was in Vietnam this past year, I couldn’t check my email for days and days. I thought I would crazy.
I just love print and paper. I think other mediums are important and valuable. I think more options are good, as long as they don’t make the old options obsolete. I think indie press in particular is going to keep print relevant. Bigger presses will move more and more towards the cheaper alternative (eBooks, etc), but there will always be people who love books. The physicality of it. I will be one of those people, but I will also be able to appreciate other platforms as they become available.
(rimshot.)
(also, i’m pretty sure you can do something with the word “rimshot.”)
This.
“My nephew, who is six, already has an eReader. My god-daughter, who is seven, has her own laptop.”
I’m pretty sure that’s not the norm.
This.
I don’t think Matt C’s comment about eyesight is “barely related.” My day job involves looking at a screen almost continously. Then I go online for some more eye punishment. Is this perhaps more than the extremely tough human eye can handle?
The book isn’t a format, like VHS or prerecorded audio cassettes, with planned
obselescense built in. If you think it’s going away, don’t hold your breath.
It’s not the eyes per se that are strained by lots of reading, esp. screen reading. It’s the strain of all the little muscles controlling eye movement (including adjustment to light/brightness) that makes you think your eyeballs are going to give out. The muscles in the iris controlling pupil size, and the muscles in the face/socket controlling eye movement. The same type of eyestrain can come after a long day driving in bright sunlight. (Or a long evening stitching by firelight in them olden days.) Think about it. It’s muscle strain/muscle fatigue.
I don’t think Matt C’s comment about eyesight is “barely related.” My day job involves looking at a screen almost continously. Then I go online for some more eye punishment. Is this perhaps more than the extremely tough human eye can handle?
The book isn’t a format, like VHS or prerecorded audio cassettes, with planned
obselescense built in. If you think it’s going away, don’t hold your breath.
It’s not the eyes per se that are strained by lots of reading, esp. screen reading. It’s the strain of all the little muscles controlling eye movement (including adjustment to light/brightness) that makes you think your eyeballs are going to give out. The muscles in the iris controlling pupil size, and the muscles in the face/socket controlling eye movement. The same type of eyestrain can come after a long day driving in bright sunlight. (Or a long evening stitching by firelight in them olden days.) Think about it. It’s muscle strain/muscle fatigue.