Typewriters, Computers, and Creating? 227
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cormac (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, that's what you get when he's a substituent instead of the main chain. trans-2,3-diCormac McCarthyl-1-butanol.
Re:Cormac (Score:5, Funny)
LOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody please chuck mod points at parent until he bursts.
Given his stated preference for not finding surprise stickiness, I'm not sure he'd like that.
Re: (Score:2)
But Chuck would.
Re: (Score:2)
his machine? Nothing.
... because Neil Stephenson writes with a fountain pen.
Let's put this in perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
Well since he lost his MINIX disks, not much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
And I'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder's piano.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fuck the computer, I want his security blanket.
And I'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder's piano.
That's peanuts!
Re: (Score:2)
A better perspective (Score:2)
Nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two differences between creating on a typewriter and a computer. First, it's a hell of a lot easier to edit on a computer; no retyping.
But most importantly, no two typewriters leave exactly the same typeface on the paper. Back in the typewriter's day, cops could prove that a (for instance) ransom note was typed on a particular typewriter. Anything written on Cormac McCarthy's typewriter will match the typeface of his original manuscript.
I wouldn't buy the PC Linus used at all; there would be no wa
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I walked up and sat at the computer. It's my new consoler. My writing has doubled in power and output since I have gotten it. It's a magic thing. I sit in front of it like most people sit in front of their tv sets.
"It's only a glorified typewriter," my son-in-law told me once.
But he isn't a writer. He doesn't know what it is when words bite into space, flash into light, when the thoughts that come into the head can be followed at once by words, which encourages more thoughts and more words to follow. With a typewriter it's like walking through mud. With a computer, it's ice skating. It's a blazing blast. Of course, if there's nothing inside you, it doesn't matter. And then there's the clean-up work, the corrections. Hell, I used to have to write everyhing twice. The first time to get it down and the second time to correct the errors and fuckups. This way, it's one run for the fun, the glory and the escape.
You sound like a wanna be poet living in his mothers basement.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a former wanna be poet trying to snub someone who still has a dream and maybe a chance to realise it.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually write (words, not code), partially for a living. I do all of my writing longhand at first. Then when I fire up the computer, I am already in my second of countless drafts, all edited on paper first by hand.
I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school. There's no way you could drag me back to those days. They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc. Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.
There's no point in idealizing the creative process, or in claiming typewriters - pure technology, if only mechanical - are superior. They're tools, and in good hands, good things result. In bad hands, bad things result.
That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I don't know why, and my handwriting is so atrocious
I haven't even been alive for 25 years, and my handwriting, I can guarantee, is worse than yours. At least you may have had a time where you wrote by hand extensively; I never did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Writing by hand is a more physical, direct process. I write all notes, etc., by hand. I can't think on the computer. I design classes and presentations and papers by hand on paper first. Always.
And 100 years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
A real writing instrument isn't mechanical. It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.
Typewriters are machines. They separate you from the page, making each letter exactly the same. They jam. They're too heavy. Sometimes they break. /postmodern wit
But for real, use what works for you. Writers fall in love with the tools that let them write, not matter how new or old.
I'd like something in between -- an e-ink screen
Re:And 100 years ago (Score:5, Funny)
A real writing instrument isn't mechanical. It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.
I agree with your point 100%. Cormac McCarthy should be auctioning off his hand!
Oh goodness.... (Score:2)
Are you people still out there, living in the 18th century?
Writing is hard graft, hard work, sweat ant tears, discipline and method.
Any tool that makes the job easier is a good thing.
Handwriting and typewriters just make the full process of writing a nightmare (the process of writing does not end with the writer himself, unless he just wants to bask in the glory of his forever unknown "talent").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just read it in William Shatner's voice and it'll sound fine.
The reader would have to put pauses in all the wrong places and emphasis on all the wrong words to do that:
"We come...in peace!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I see your anecdote and raise you an anecdote: I have two Amigas from the early 90s that both still work fine (or at least did the last time I tried them a couple of years ago). I keep them purely for sentimental reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also zero chance of a typewriter accidentally revealing to the world what you did on it.
That is so wrong. Forensics (and almost anyone) can put together at least a few pages by reading the imprint on the typewriter ribbon.
Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My hands hurt just thinking about it. Then again, I wonder how much the baroque cycle would have weighed if he had used a work processor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fountain pens are actually rather easy on the hands - no pressure on the paper at all, just contact, and capillary action.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As any student knows, it's not the amount of time you write, but how fast you write that causes pain. Most days of the Fall 2008 semester, I spent three hours in math class (math grad student now) taking notes, two hours in a drawing class, and then gone home to do homework (scratch-work by hand, then LaTeX), and had no trouble with pain.
Then one summer I took European history, which was you basic projector-based lecture. That is to say, how often the slides were changed was based on how quickly the profess
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you go to the Science Fiction Museum [empsfm.org] in Seattle (attached to the Experience Music Project), they have the pens Stephenson used to write (I seem to recall) the Baroque Cycle along with the original manuscript. It's quite a stack of paper!
A cool museum, especially for the Slashdot crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
The man has great ideas... but his sense of plot and wrapping up loose ends leaves a lot to be desired.
What will happen is plastic in landfill (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well. A 4 or 5 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery"
There now fixed it for ya ;-)
Re:What will happen is plastic in landfill (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Painfully true. Restoring old computers is incredibly difficult. The sad thing about the Computer Museum in Silicon Valley is that almost nothing works. They've succeeded in restoring two IBM 1401 computers, but they had several of the original design team available. None of the their early personal computers are displayed as working devices.
On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, working. [aetherltd.com] I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds. Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt, and can run for decades if properly maintained. All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling. [aetherltd.com] All the metal is high quality steel. The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick. And the machine has over 500 oiling points, ranging from a dozen oil reservoirs with spring-loaded caps to hundreds of points that just need a drop of oil.
Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though. Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good. Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age. Early low-end wiring materials didn't last. Early plastics became brittle with age. Those gadgets were discarded long ago. The ones still around are the good ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly the 45 year old typewriters is nothing but a brick. Dust has settled deep into it's innards, clogging and slowing the mechanism. The lubricants have either evaporated or dried, further gumming up the works. The remnants of ink on the heads attracts dust too... slowly turning them into Q-tips.
Seriously, it appears that few if any of the posters here have ever actually spent much time around
Re: (Score:2)
Read TFA. The typewriter has not been maintained besides blowing out dust and it's still in the working condition. None of the problems you described are irreversible with proper cleaning. See another reply that I got [slashdot.org].
don't think it's mechanical v. digital (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm still using a 1996 Packard Bell in my living room for the daycare kids! It runs just fine, as long as I reinstall Windows 95 every couple of months or so.
Re:don't think it's mechanical v. digital (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
dash dash dash, dot dot dot dot
dash dot dash dash, dot, dot dash, dot dot dot dot
dot dot dash dash dot dot
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the first modem was 300 baud.
The oldest modem I know of is 110 baud, but TTY/TTD was even slower.
http://williambader.com/museum/modem110/modem110.html [williambader.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But no one wants my TI-99/4a
Mechanical things die from neglect (Score:2)
Decades from now... (Score:2)
The McCarthy typewriter will still be a functional typewriter (assuming it's taken care of by the auction winner)
A PC or laptop decades later would be more useful as a paperweight and would have only nostalgic value, and only to those to whom it held meaning.
Perhaps the typewriter auction winner will author something that gains acclaim. Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A power book without its power supply. Like Greenland it is named after its principle deficiency.
(apologies to DNA).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something."
There's a common on all usable devices: you want them to be usable. It really doesn't matter if it's a sword, a motorcycle or a typewritter; they *must* be ready to go. A very different thing is in fact using them.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.
Compared to modern systems, Typewritters suck even moreso. That's why we stopped using them, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
An old manual typewriter will work in a cave with no power.
An old computer won't do anything without power, except collect dust.
I'd take an old manual typewriter over an old laptop any day.
Still valuable... (Score:2)
Maybe just sell me the the hard drive, I can marvel the was authors work briefly held by the platters as they spun.
How does that not hold the same romance as the type writer? What? No, I dont need to get out more..
No obligatory Pattern Recognition reference? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What, did he use it to write something in the snow?
Re:No obligatory Pattern Recognition reference? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, his last twelve books.
Mechanical Marvels (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I would be lost without spell check, Often I just make a bad guess at the spelling of a word, then rely on the context menu to fix it for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I would too. I've actually improved a ton, mostly from studying foreign languages (French and Latin, mostly). While I'm miles better than I used to be, I still get little wavy red lines all the time.
Then there are the typos...
Still, watching a typewriter work is rather cool.
A PC has no soul (Score:2)
Its just a box, as bland as the next guys.
Now, real honest to god typewriter has character, every one is unique.
Re:A PC has no soul (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, as unique as the next one that came off the assembly line, identical in every way as the former save the serial number.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As they are for each computer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
typewriter still works? (Score:2)
if you could get the ink ribbons...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But you can easily remanufacture an existing ink ribbon, OTOH, you cant do the same with a dead hard disk.
Another advantage of the typewriter over the PC: even if both works, a vintage typewriter will always be compatible with today's office supplements (paper), and its easy to extract the data inserted (read the paper with your eyeballs, or OCR it). A 20+ years old PC uses physical media that aren't produced anymore, and its far more difficult to extract the data (old media, connections).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Symbolism for Writing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the Cookie's comb...
Do you mean Edd "Kookie" Byrnes, of "77 Sunset Strip"?
Just FYI (Score:2)
Neal Stephenson's laptop is not really relevant, because the last several books from him were written with a fountain pen.
We don't use typewriters anymore (Score:2, Insightful)
Physicality (Score:4, Interesting)
The Olivetti has worth because of its link to a physical product. I wouldn't value the PC or Mac of an author as much because it was only a general-purpose machine that happened to be used as a literary tool by virtue of the software on it. And I wouldn't pay anything for a decades-old binary image of Emacs. When writing on computer, the text becomes its own thing, it transcends the physical. In some ways, I dislike it because of that. I really enjoy the physical link with the text I get when writing with pen, when clacking on a manual typewriter, or otherwise. The advantages of text sublimated from the physical are great--better storage and search, versioning, editing, independent control of presentation, logical layout, etc. But it makes the tool used to make it less interesting, more mundane, more merely processing. The Olivetti, like my Pelikan, are precision tools purposely made for writing. In this way they become the paraphernalia of the writer, the adjutants of his talent. You pay for that connection. With stuff like this it's always the connection that's important. Beige boxes--even flashy Macs--don't have it.
Not less valuable; possibly more. (Score:5, Informative)
I am a writer (or at least, I've written a couple of novels and a few hundred thousand spare words that are lying around waiting to be turned into novels, plus assorted other writing), and I have always written exclusively on a computer.
I should be clear that I'm not trying to compare myself with Stephenson or McCarthy; I'm fully in the amateur rank, but I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing. It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book." I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!).
Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer. I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want. Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)). Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc... I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to go off-topic here, but what software do you use? What file formats do you use? .txt .rtf
???
I have lost access to more copies of my writing over the years due to changing formats. (I will not repeat the loss of dozens of stories/ideas that happened with my C64.)
OOO320_m6 (Score:2)
Analog (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the question? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it "Cormac McCarthy [link to article on author and his work] 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; is there something ... intrinsically interesting and valuable", based on the entirety or on a portion thereof?
Or is it "a guy is selling a thing he wrote stuff with; think it's worth something"?
I'd buy Isaac Asimov's word processor, typewriter or chalk board. I wouldn't buy kdawson's Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian Overlords running 6 flavors of *nix, and a direct neural-to-keyboard port interface.
I think it's safe to assume the guy is selling his history, not the tech. And certainly not the brand, because (speaking as a past office equipment repairer) Vettis suck.
Underwood and Jar Jar Binks (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my ex-girlfriends had this gorgeous Underwood typewriter which she was given as a gift and she displays in her livingroom. It has a nice aesthetic quality which engages the imagination. --If it had been owned by a famous writer from its age, then it would send thrill-chills down my spine just being near it. --Imagine Mark Twain's fountain pen (or whatever he used) on your desk.
Perhaps when enough time has passed that computers and keyboards are irrelevant, out-moded technology, where few enough still exist that they are museum pieces from a past age, then I imagine they will hold a similar aesthetic quality for people. Especially if you happened to own one which belonged to a famous, culture-shaping individual.
But I suspect we'll have to wait another century or so before we know who will be remembered and revered and who will be lost in time.
Roddenberry? Maybe. I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson. -George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace. (Sorry, George, but it's true.)
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Just remembered this with reference to Star Wars. . .
http://radioactivepanda.com/comic/30 [radioactivepanda.com]
Cheers!
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Durability, nothing more. (Score:3, Interesting)
Technology is technology; the more modern, the more ephemeral. People get attached to things that have durability.
My grandmother was a minor author, with five books or pamphlets under her belt. She wrote them all, in addition to her personal correspondence, on an Underwood manual typewriter from the 1890s. I've had it cleaned and serviced, and expect that it will continue to work just fine for another 120 years, assuming we can still get the ribbons (and if not, making them doesn't seem that daunting). Every letter that I type on it, every journal entry, connects me to her because she used it for so long.
In contrast, since my first laptop purchase in 1992 or 1993, I've had eight or nine of them. They don't last. There's only one that I remember fondly (and still have a working model) but the likelihood that it will work in 20 years is quite low. The battery certainly will no longer hold any appreciable charge. My current laptop could disappear and be replaced with a newer model and I'd not really blink.
My grandmother's typewriter has a cast iron frame and steel parts. My best laptops have had cast magnesium frames and mostly plastic parts. In the 50 years that my grandmother used her typewriter, some of the letters started to show wear. My laptops have universally shown keyboard wear in under 2 years, most in under 1 year.
If computers had an appreciable lifetime beyond two or three years, then quite possibly, we might find the same attachment, but we don't. The only real attachment that people have are to some keyboards, most notably the IBM Model M, which is built like an old-style typewriter.
Re: (Score:2)
(You can sort of get that today with laptops if you stick with the models that have an affordable 5yr warranty and you avoid the bottom half of the market. Eventually, I exp
typewriters and the Kaypro (Score:3, Interesting)
funny - without knowing what the topic was, when I saw the mention of the Olivetti typewriter I had warm memories of the Olivetti portable typewriter I used to pay my way through college by typing other students' term papers.
I don't think the emotional response is limited to typewriters. I remember fondly my first computer - a Kaypro - a portable computer at only 26 pounds! Back then (1983) home computers were unusual and did unusual things. Now they are pretty routine, and many people don't use them for much more than one could do with a high-end smartphone. (Play some music, display some pictures, connect to the internet, check out Twitter...)
And I don't think the issue is just about whether the item works. I'd pay money to get my old Kaypro back, even if it weren't working (not much money, but some). On the other hand, I wouldn't pay anything for its successor, which if i remember correctly was a Fountain XT computer (a cheap IBM knockoff).
Stevenson writes with a pen on paper (Score:2)
How do I know this? My best friend worked with Stevenson at Bezos's space venture Blue. (Neither of them are still there.)
I firmly answer "maybe." (Score:2)
Who knows? I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity. And for writers, I don't think it matters what OS you use [jseliger.com], although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even
keyboard! (Score:2)
who cares about the computer, it's all about the keyboard.
A computer is more valuble! (Score:2)
I would actually pay more for a computer that for a typewriter, provided that it contains the software and data the author used, except probably some sensitive personal data.
A computer can tell about a person far more than a typewriter.
Douglas Adams (Score:2)
I can think of plenty of (perfectly sane) people who would happily bid for Douglas Adam's Mac. Especially if the files were left intact - some of them were used in constructing the Salmon of Doubt, the novel he was outlining at the time.
A collector's item only needs to be unique - it doesn't matter what it is, physically. Charlie Chaplin's bowler hat is just the same as any other bowler hat - but worth a lot more.
Neal Stephenson writes with a pen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)