Skip to main content

History aside, Lisa Gitelman stood up to the fact that in the current history of technology, we must learn more about the interdisciplinary method or the bibliography for machines for writing and reading as they developed in the late twentieth century which will lead us to understand writing and reading as a social and cultural surpass experience, that to be said, will in return widen our knowledge about the connectivity that wires up both technology and textuality. In that sense, the author then tries to establish a thorough comparison between the past and the present, not from a historical point of view, but also from a theoretical notion as she described the relationship between the old printing press and the current digital printing or computing process as both to explain inscribed writing.

The idea that we are able to store up and reproduce data, being voice, sound, text, information or any other data able to inscribed, afterward in an automatic way has pointed out a trigger in the author as a producer’s stages of development. There’s no doubt, the author indicated, that the durability of storing up data helped develop the contemporary age of media in a new popular culture as we know it. This in the long run of our human development created what was later called inscriptive duplications which helped shaping the world of mass production technology; as in the mimeograph, photography and motion picture that caused in the result of the ability to duplication inscriptions.

There are always differences between writing machines that are able to reproduce information in the sense that reproducing as change creates new difficulties as they develop, but one of the remarkable differences in reproducing data came with the development of the phonograph that the author differentiated not by the ability to reproduce data but by the ability to conserve as to store up data; over and over as we are able to retrieve this information upon request in the future.

As a result of the proposed technology being inscriptive duplications, theorists started to rise up the questions about the authenticity of the text being inscribed in comparison with the original text. On the other hand, the author was concerned about the history of technology as the history of man, the human written. “This is the kind of history that Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines seeks to locate the mutual relations of technology and textuality”.

The human history as it develops and being written requires not only new ways of writing but also new kind or models of wirings and reading on which its accuracy and durability will depend on the model itself being tight or flexible model for writing and reading. The former is suggested to be valid or suitable for a defined classification or group of people while only when being flexible, negotiable as the author indicated, the model will not cease to develop and implemented in the social and cultural development that will eventually lead to model workability. In this sense, the author defined workability not only by the being able to work, but also by being able to keep working “because it succeeds amid prevailing and possibly competitive expectations”.

Aside from its psychological implementation, Automatic writing seems to have a great reference for the author trying to connect the dots between its historical scientific as to be practiced by “writings done by partially conscious, distracted, hypnotized subjects as well as to writing done mediumistically” and The term Automatic writing that was also characterized by practicing the application of it by typing.

In order to achieve workability, the author suggests that the model of communication has to be public in the sense that history has recorded many implications about a model of communication being developed only when being available to the public use which was at the very first stage available only to the bureaucratic society before they can be technologically developed for the mass. A great example here is the historical gap of the typewriter before being publically available for manufacturing.

As the author begins to rationalize the theory of duplication inscriptions, an argument, yet definite to the author, arises that the new forms or models being developed, have helped confirming and shaping the ongoing identity of the contemporary parameters and the experiences of authorship and reading on an equal level of intervention between the private and the public life which later leads to dynamic construction of our lives. A great example for this intervention was the X-ray machine that intervenes with our inner private life.

The word “automatic” in this context denoted an increased efficiency because it was mechanical, and a decreased skill level for operation that was pointedly feminized.” This helped in understanding the workability in recycling the social meaning of writers and writings into different experiments and researches done by automatic writings scientists that led to types rather than genders that both psychical research and psychology acknowledged a difference between automatic writing done by self-aware subjects and hypnotized ones.

This new experience of textuality is entirely attached to the social and cultural development of the writing machines as to create a human automatic understanding of the output rather than the input. We use automatic calculators without understanding the algorithms and calculations that are being processed automatically inside the writing machine. Later we become automatic humans.