Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Computers - Yea or Nay?

Expand Messages
  • eke.webb@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
    A big shout to the other ten of you, whoever you are! Well, I m completely new to this list type thingy so please forgive me if I m breaching any sort of
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 23, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      A big shout to the other ten of you, whoever you are!

      Well, I'm completely new to this list type thingy so please forgive me if I'm breaching any sort of protocol here. There doesn't seem to be much going on so I thought I'd throw in my two pence worth and see if I can get any sort of ball rolling.

      Dave's been going on about computers in Aardvark Comment recently and, seeing as how we should all be fairly computer literate by virtue of being signed up to this list, I thought I'd poll you all to see if you agreed with him to any degree.

      Most recently in 'Fall & the River' 11 (I've lost track of the real issue numbers over the years) Dave says that computer usage is a hindrance to any sort of literary endeavour. He believes that typing anything into a word processor gives the author a finished-looking document at all times no matter how much correction and revision has been done. This, to Dave, means that the author has no way of telling whether he's concentrating on what he's doing as he can't tell how many times he's tinkered with a phrase or sentence. He says that if he's revised something more than three (?) times in the last few minutes then he's not concentrating on what he's doing and has to get himself in a frame of mind fit for writing.

      In the past he's bemoaned the pixellation of art on computer screens and the idea that computer users can think they're looking at a piece of art on screen when all they're really seeing is a digitized image of some real artwork.

      I must say that I agree with him to a great extent. I find 'Word' inimical to writing anything more than a technical document. Luckily I work in the computer industry so that's what I tend to use it for! I do use Word for writing other stuff but I find that it tends to get a bit 'will this do?' after I've got fed up re-reading it for the umpteenth time and save it anyway. Maybe that's just me though. Once I've done that and printed it off I find it much easier to review and correct with a pen than I would on screen. There's something about a printed page that you just don't get on a screen.

      I also use Cubase for creating music as I'm not technically accomplished enough to use a real instrument in real time. The problem with that is that I tend to cycle round the same one or two bars of music tinkering and tinkering until that bit sounds OK, repeat that to fill up the verse/chorus or whatever and then move on to the next bit. This makes the whole thing sound very repetiive and sterile and I have to really work hard on giving the whole piece a more organic feel. I'm sure if I could really 'play' then that would all be a more natural process.

      The trouble with Dave is that he's so full of shit on most subjects it's very difficult for me to bring myself to agree with him on any subject. That's probably why I picked this part of his ongoing diatribes against anything and everything to comment on as it's not too contentious and fairly ease to have an opinion on without offending people. Maybe if this goes well we can get on with discussing his outrageous opinions on women, homosexuals, mothers etc. (Or, if all else fails, maybe even the book itself!)

      Food for thought there? Or don't any of you give a monkey's?

      Love and kisses

      Eke
    • Dr Eric J Fennessey
      So there are eleven of us on the list! eke s posting is about the 3rd posting I have recieved, so I things are a bit slow here. My view about word processors
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 23, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        So there are eleven of us on the list!

        eke's posting is about the 3rd posting I have recieved, so I things are a bit
        slow here.

        My view about word processors is that they are a little bit like magic, fairly
        neutral in themselves but they can be good or bad in their effect on ones
        writing. I only use one at work and have noted two effects. Firstly, it is
        much easier to write first drafts (writing them longhand as you chop and change
        the order of the text is a nightmare). Once you have a reasonable first pass
        it's very easy to over-polish what you end up with. Indeed, it goes beyond
        that, you can get the text right and spend another day pissing about with the
        formatting!

        I'm not convinced anymore that Dave believes anything he writes in his Dave
        voice, it's like he wears a mask for a while and then moves on. He probably
        gets a kick from thinking this'll get the readers in a tizzy. We've had Dave
        the militant self-publisher, Dave the misogynist, Dave the Christian, Dave the
        art-critic. In each case (excluding perhaps the self-publishing stuff) he
        spend a long time giving out specious arguments in favour of some position or
        other. The art in these (if it's deliberate) is that they are all pitched to
        cause dissent, those who believe in the view being propounded will go 'the man
        truly knows what's what' and the dissenters will go 'the man has truly lost
        it'. I have been around these loops enough times that I am now prepared to
        just enjoy Dave's Digressions as a seperate pleasure from Cerebus the book.

        Finally, here in Stockport (Cheshire) we have missed an issue #242 with #243
        appearing in the shops last week. Did this happen to anyone else, and does
        anyone know why?

        Regards,
        Eric
      • Eke Webb
        Apparently..... After 242 was about a week late I spoke to the guys in Gosh (where I shop) and they said that they ordered from both Diamond and Red Route so
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 23, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Apparently.....

          After 242 was about a week late I spoke to the guys in Gosh (where I shop)
          and they said that they ordered from both Diamond and Red Route so as
          neither distributor had given them any Cerebus then Dave must be slipping
          again (as he did so thoroughly during the early part of Church and State).
          When 243 turned up, as you say, about a week ago, they realised that
          something else must have happened and started querying things a bit.

          They told me that Diamond left the entire shipment for the UK in a warehouse
          somewhere while the Red Route shipment was stuck in the Panama canal. I got
          242 on Monday which was how I was able to quote from it. I think my copy
          must have been from the Red Route shipment as Gosh didn't have any issues on
          the racks. Maybe Mark can entertain us with more details - being on the
          sharp end of all this.

          I hope you're right about Dave putting on a 'contentious Dave' mask when
          writing the text pieces. He seemed pleasant enough when I spoke to him at a
          signing a few years back - but that was a long time ago and well before he'd
          propounded some of his more 'interesting' ideas.

          Eke
        • elmo499@mindspring.com
          First of all -- yes, I realize this message was posted a while ago, but a friend of mine just today got online with my help and I asked him if he wanted to
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            First of all -- yes, I realize this message was posted a while ago,
            but a friend of mine just today got online with my help and I asked
            him if he wanted to check out the group, which he did. He started at
            the beginning (which i never did) and as a consequence I was exposed
            to some of the early postings as well. This is the same friend who
            gave me my first prolonged exposure to the earth-pig born many years
            ago.
            The rest of my comments appear below
            Elmo

            --- In cerebus@egroups.com, eke.webb@... wrote:
            > A big shout to the other ten of you, whoever you are!

            We've come quite a ways since that time: we have about four times
            the membership now -- with another three or so members having joined
            in just the past month or so! Go group!

            > Dave's been going on about computers in Aardvark Comment recently
            and, seeing as how we should all be fairly computer literate by
            virtue of being signed up to this list, I thought I'd poll you all to
            see if you agreed with him to any degree.
            >
            > Most recently in 'Fall & the River' 11 (I've lost track of the real
            issue numbers over the years) Dave says that computer usage is a
            hindrance to any sort of literary endeavour. He believes that typing
            anything into a word processor gives the author a finished-looking
            document at all times no matter how much correction and revision has
            been done. This, to Dave, means that the author has no way of telling
            whether he's concentrating on what he's doing as he can't tell how
            many times he's tinkered with a phrase or sentence. He says that if
            he's revised something more than three (?) times in the last few
            minutes then he's not concentrating on what he's doing and has to get
            himself in a frame of mind fit for writing.
            >

            Back when I used to do a lot more writing than I do now, I used to
            constantly bemoan the fact that no matter how I tried, I could not
            write perfectly the first time around. I HATED writing the old-
            fashioned way!

            1. BY HAND. There's a certain character or "flavor" to hand-writing
            a document, but it is God-awfully slow. When I used to write short
            stories for publication, I would sometimes use this method for notes
            or to write certain scenes, but no matter how quickly one writes, it
            is difficult to do any serious writing this way -- and, anyway, one
            would have to type the darn thing up at the end anyway! also, in my
            notes and notebooks that are handwritten, I notice that I would tend
            to put blocks around text and indicate where they should be moved --
            much as one would do in a word processing program on a computer.
            2. TYPEWRITER. Obviously the typewriter is quicker than writing by
            hand -- but if you have a story or article that is going just the way
            you wanted it, but there is a section ANYwhere other than pn the last
            page, you have the incredible fun of having to rewrite the whole
            thing over from the point of the revision forward. Talk about
            tedious! And I'm sorry, I did not make enough money being a writer
            to hire a secretary whose job it would be to do all this mundane crap
            for me (in addition to the actual submissions themselves, including
            cover letters -- and God forbid you make a mistake on one of THOSE).
            3. WORD PROCESSOR. I did -- and do-- own a Magnavox word
            processor. You want to talk about annoying? Howabout owning a
            machine that works well for you but is slightly out of date at first,
            then very much out of date for a while. Getting parts (disks,
            replacement ribbons) becomes a chore. It has no real memory to speak
            of, and the disk where you store your works isn't compatible with any
            other formats (PC or Mac). Now, if one of your floppy disks gets
            messed up, whatever was in it is lost. I recently discovered that AT
            LEAST one of my manuscripts is lost because of that. Fun.

            All in all, the computer was a God-send: quick, easy-to-use and
            store, and pretty universally-compatible formats.

            > The trouble with Dave is that he's so full of shit on most subjects
            it's very difficult for me to bring myself to agree with him on any
            subject. That's probably why I picked this part of his ongoing
            diatribes against anything and everything to comment on as it's not
            too contentious and fairly ease to have an opinion on without
            offending people. Maybe if this goes well we can get on with
            discussing his outrageous opinions on women, homosexuals, mothers
            etc. (Or, if all else fails, maybe even the book itself!)
            >

            That's pretty funny!

            > Food for thought there? Or don't any of you give a monkey's?
            >
            > Love and kisses
            >
            > Eke

            We love you too (I don't mean the royal "we" or the group; I mean my
            multiple personalities and I)
            El
            Mo
            searching for a group home to house us all in.
          • elmo499@mindspring.com
            ... accomplished enough to use a real instrument in real time. The problem with that is that I tend to cycle round the same one or two bars of music tinkering
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cerebus@egroups.com, eke.webb@... wrote:
              >
              > I also use Cubase for creating music as I'm not technically
              accomplished enough to use a real instrument in real time. The
              problem with that is that I tend to cycle round the same one or two
              bars of music tinkering and tinkering until that bit sounds OK,
              repeat that to fill up the verse/chorus or whatever and then move on
              to the next bit. This makes the whole thing sound very repetiive and
              sterile and I have to really work hard on giving the whole piece a
              more organic feel. I'm sure if I could really 'play' then that would
              all be a more natural process.
              >
              >
              > Eke

              Technology has (to paraphrase the Artsist Formerly Known As The
              Artist Formerly Known As Prince and now Known As Prince again) led to
              a lot of bad musicianship. I love technology in music, and play both
              drums and have had a drum machine for a long time. However there's
              nothing like actually getting down on some real instruments. For
              example, I have a keyboard, which has some programmed beats -- but I
              would never say i know how to play the instrument that the "keyboard"
              is based on; namely a piano. I can pick out some rudimentary things,
              but that's about it.
              But one can make some pretty hypnotic stuff using some of the
              technology available. And some of the recording software just can't
              be beat for turning one's computer into a home studio.
              Musical Mo
            • elmo499@mindspring.com
              ... when ... him at a ... before he d ... That s an interesting idea. Perhaps it s even the the corect one in some respects. I do, howver, tend to think that
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cerebus@egroups.com, "Eke Webb" <eke.webb@...
                wrote:
                > I hope you're right about Dave putting on a 'contentious Dave' mask
                when
                > writing the text pieces. He seemed pleasant enough when I spoke to
                him at a
                > signing a few years back - but that was a long time ago and well
                before he'd
                > propounded some of his more 'interesting' ideas.
                >
                > Eke

                That's an interesting idea. Perhaps it's even the the corect one in
                some respects. I do, howver, tend to think that although he is not
                rude when one sees him in person, he does use the Letters and The
                Comments to get across views that he believes in. I don't think he's
                being specifically antagonistic. In many respects he reminds me of
                the writer Harlan Ellison: opinionated, but not necessarily rude
                unless antagonised.
                One thing Dave has over Ellison, though; a work ethic. If Ellison
                were writing Cerebus, we'd be lucky if we would have reached issue 50
                by now.
                Opinionated Mo
              • Margaret
                ... That and the number of posts have skyrocketed! Lets see if the number of posts in September can beat the number in August! As for your comments on hand
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Eke did write (a while ago):
                  > > A big shout to the other ten of you, whoever you are!

                  Then Elmo did say:
                  > We've come quite a ways since that time: we have about four times
                  > the membership now -- with another three or so members having
                  > joined in just the past month or so! Go group!

                  That and the number of posts have skyrocketed! Lets see if the number
                  of posts in September can beat the number in August!

                  As for your comments on hand writing vs. typewriters vs. word
                  processers vs. computers -- I'd have to agree with you. In high
                  school I had to type all of my reports. Of course the only type
                  writer my family owned was my mom's old manual Remington. That thing
                  was a classic. It didn't even have a key to 'undo' mistakes. It was
                  take it out and put a little white out on the mistake, let it dry,
                  and then try to fit it back in the typewriter at the exact same spot
                  and type the correct letter / word. what a pain. Of course, you
                  didn't type out the report until you had finished revising it by hand
                  several times. blech.

                  As for not being able to see your revisions on a computer -- After
                  typing my document up on a computer, I'll print it out, revise it
                  (with the good ole red pen) and then go into the computer and make
                  the changes. So everytime I do a revision, I have a print out with
                  all my changes on them. It is nice having a school with free (so to
                  speak) printer usage and a recycling bin for after my efforts are
                  complete.

                  Take care,
                  Margaret
                  http://www.cerebusfangirl.com
                • elmo499@mindspring.com
                  ... times ... having ... number ... thing ... spot ... hand ... The other thing, too, is this: being somewhat anal about keeping track of revisions, I ve
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 3, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In cerebus@egroups.com, "Margaret " <meowwcat@h...> wrote:
                    > Eke did write (a while ago):
                    > > > A big shout to the other ten of you, whoever you are!
                    >
                    > Then Elmo did say:
                    > > We've come quite a ways since that time: we have about four
                    times
                    > > the membership now -- with another three or so members
                    having
                    > > joined in just the past month or so! Go group!
                    >
                    > That and the number of posts have skyrocketed! Lets see if the
                    number
                    > of posts in September can beat the number in August!
                    >
                    > As for your comments on hand writing vs. typewriters vs. word
                    > processers vs. computers -- I'd have to agree with you. In high
                    > school I had to type all of my reports. Of course the only type
                    > writer my family owned was my mom's old manual Remington. That
                    thing
                    > was a classic. It didn't even have a key to 'undo' mistakes. It was
                    > take it out and put a little white out on the mistake, let it dry,
                    > and then try to fit it back in the typewriter at the exact same
                    spot
                    > and type the correct letter / word. what a pain. Of course, you
                    > didn't type out the report until you had finished revising it by
                    hand
                    > several times. blech.
                    >
                    > As for not being able to see your revisions on a computer -- After
                    > typing my document up on a computer, I'll print it out, revise it
                    > (with the good ole red pen) and then go into the computer and make
                    > the changes. So everytime I do a revision, I have a print out with
                    > all my changes on them. It is nice having a school with free (so to
                    > speak) printer usage and a recycling bin for after my efforts are
                    > complete.
                    >
                    > Take care,
                    > Margaret
                    > http://www.cerebusfangirl.com

                    The other thing, too, is this: being somewhat anal about keeping
                    track of revisions, I've discovered that MS Word has a "versions"
                    option, where you can basically store a version of a document prior
                    to its revision, subject to recall at any time. And you can even
                    keep track of changes you've made in a current document -- it will
                    show you the original text and any changes you've made will appear in
                    red. Neat huh?
                    I mean, I hate to say ANYthing good about MicroLimp, so you KNOW this
                    took a lot out of me.
                    MicroMo
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.