Typewriters, Computers, and Creating?

saddleupsancho writes "Today's NY Times reports that Cormac McCarthy is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written, to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow. What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops? Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation? Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy's generation is about his Olivetti? Would you offer as much for McCarthy's input device if it were a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti?"

Cormac

[PHPNerd]

The link goes to "Cormac McCarthyl" whereas it should go to Cormac McCarthy [wikipedia.org].

Let's put this in perspective

[coppro]

How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?

I rest my case.

Yes

[DreamsAreOkToo]

Yes, there is something different. A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears. On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages. In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops. Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all. In 45 years, Neil Gaiman's last 12 computers are going to be sitting in a dump or recycled into new computers.

Also, typewriters are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard. They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life. You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...

speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.

What will happen is plastic in landfill

[iamacat]

A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well. A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.

don't think it's mechanical v. digital

[Trepidity]

I think the distinguishing characteristics are more a matter of interesting v. cookie-cutter device, and durable v. throw-away. I would pay money for an interesting, well-designed, durable computer with historical value. But I'm not going to shell out for a generic PC with an expected lifespan of less than 10 years, just because someone famous used it.

In short, the Olivetti has some style, and it will likely continue to work, or can be serviced if not. That may be true of some computers, also--- older Apple products, especially the Apple ][ line and classic Macs, are already becoming collectors' items to some extent. But nobody is going to be shelling out for a 1996 Packard Bell.

Mechanical Marvels

[MBCook]

I've heard quite a few reasons for using typewriters, especially manual. You have to think our your sentences first, since there is no real correction. On my computer I can type and type and type and edit later, but you can't do that on a typewriter (unless you want to retype everything 40 times). This forces you to put much more thought into your words and thoughts.

The force required on the keys (if you have a manual) makes the words feel... costlier... and the sound really is great. I'd imagine that when you really get going the noise helps keep you in the groove. Actually, a good IBM Model M day do the same.

Then there is the fiddle factor. If you gave a 12 or 14 year old a typewriter and say "write a story", all they can do is write the story. Give them a copy of Word (or any other word processor) and they can write, choose a font, a color, edit the spacing.... With a typewriter, you get words and nothing else. No fonts to change. No sizes. All the decisions are made for you.

I'm not much of a writer. I don't own a typewriter (although my brother has beautiful one from the 40s). I can easily say that the thing I like most about this is something that probably resonates with other /.ers: they're really mechanically complex. They weigh a ton and are crammed with tons of little levers and cams and such. A seemingly almost solid block of metal articulates 30 (or so) little hammers and moves the type head perfectly, even at 120 WPM. They are little mechanical marvels. Imagine what seeing the Frank McGurrin [wikipedia.org] type 90 WPM must have been like for people, raised on writing longhand.

Symbolism for Writing

[Taur0]

Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic. A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming. So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.

We don't use typewriters anymore

[Garble Snarky]

If we still used typewriters every day, nobody would pay anywhere near as much for this. Similarly, when we eventually stop using what we now know as PCs, people will pay much more for a famous PC.

Re:Decades from now...

[the phantom]

I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something. I'm sorry, but you don't shell out the kind of money that this typewriter might be expected to go for in order to buy a tool for writing. You shell out that money in order to have an object whose value is greater than its utility because it has been involved in some kind of event or process of significance. If a person wanted to buy a typewriter for typing, there are many of them still running around, and they can often be found relatively cheaply at estate sales, or on eBay (they seem to be going for $50-$500).

In the same way, there are plenty of collectors out there who would almost certainly be willing to spend a fair chunk of change to get their hands on an Apple 1, a signed Mac II, or something similar. They don't want a tool---they want a piece of history. The functionality of the object is secondary.

Re:Yes

[MightyMartian]

I find for technical writing (manuals, reports), I work well enough in a word processor, but for creative output, the pen and paper just seems to fit better. I don't know why, and my handwriting is so atrocious after 25 years of typing that it's hard to read, but I can't get in the same creative mood on a computer. I'm sure it's completely psychosomatic, but still kind of weird.

Re:Yes

[Raptor851]

Hmm, I'd say that's more of a recent phenomena though. While it's true the working life of my recent computers is 4-5 years at most. (lower if it ever had HP, Compaq, or Sony, written on it), my Commodore, one of my friend's mac classics, and other older machines never died, just stopped being used as much. (mostly brought out just to mess with now), hell, as a more recent example, my Thinkpad was built in 2000 and is still my primary laptop today, and gets used more than any other computer I own. Works as well as the day it was built. (though thinkpads were a long standing exception, most everything was cheap throwaway junk by around 1995). This is irrelevant to my main point however :)

Junk or not though, whether it works is generally irrelevant for a collector of such things. Your points about a typewriter are just as valid to a well built computer, and the durability issue pointed out just as relevant to a cheap typewriter. (I'm old enough to have written school papers on typewriters, and yes, a lot of them were junk that broke after 3-4 years). The only real value is who owned it previously, it doesn't matter if it's a $0.02 BIC pen used to write a popular book, it still gains that perceived value.

just my 0.02 cents

Re:A PC has no soul

[cosm]

but in a typewriter, it is that unique hardware that gives a signature output, whereas in the computer the software used for creation is largely homogeneous, hence the appreciation differences between the two overall technologies.

Re:Let's put this in perspective

[rolfwind]

How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?

That's an interesting thought.

But let's keep this on authors. A typewriter is a mechanical tool, the good ones were expensive and of good quality, and once you had one, there was no real reason to "upgrade." OTOH, authors today may go through a computer every 2-5 years on average, and may have more than one at a time. I don't see an author in the nearterm future only having one computer their entire career, unless it's a really short career.

Re:Let's put this in perspective

[doi]

Fuck the computer, I want his security blanket.

And I'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder's piano.

Nothing.

[jotaeleemeese]

I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.

typewriters are a fetish

[agentultra]

It's pretty simple: Typewriters have become a fetish. They are unique, durable, and built for a singular purpose. There isn't anything that makes them superior as a writing instrument. People have just idealized and idolized them.

Myself, I prefer my typewriter for writing.

1. No distractions or temptation to distraction. No browser window sitting in the background or messaging service waiting to pop up a message at me.
2. Reduced dissonance. I sit in front of a typewriter to write and nothing else. No thoughts about who emailed me or what else I was working on (or at least those thoughts fade as I begin to write).
3. Automatic process documentation. I can see every single word I typed, every sentence I scratched out, and every note I took. I can physically see the evolution of my drafts. Sure I could use a VCS and some sort of key-logging solution in my editor, but why bother futzing around. The typewriter and a pencil do it with the least amount of effort... and won't ever require any software to use to read it.
4. It works even when the power is out. Sometimes I turn it out for the mood.
5. I don't edit as much when I'm typing. Sometimes I can't help myself and I rip out a piece of paper mid-paragraph, but that's far more rare than hitting the backspace or going back and correcting typos, editing grammar, and copying and pasting and everything else.
6. I get a more visceral and primitive connection to my work when I see it take physical form. I can eyeball my progress and see it take shape. There is no temptation to run wc on my text file after every few paragraphs. When I get mad at it I have something physical I can throw around and take my anger out on without regretting the damage it will do to my wallet.
7. Paper has a proven track-record as an easy to preserve archival medium.

This isn't to say that I never use a computer. I much prefer to edit my work on a computer. Scanning in my drafts and using OCR to convert them to plain-text files is a bit tedious but worth it I think. Emacs is a fantastic editing tool. That is the stage in which I indulge in fussing around with the order of things, correcting typos, and touching up grammar. Computers make that easy and its the part I least enjoy so any tool that makes it easier is okay with me (and bonus if it lets me distract myself with a slashdot break).