The whole reading was kind of confusing. In the Word Processor, I think he agrees that the “echo” of a lecture can also be found in a machine -an example when he gives lectures. But then he’ll say computers/machines are problematic. He seems to go back and forth…

Towards the end of Paper or Me, You Know…., he talks about how public communication (in the electronic world) can be “globalized” in a matter of hours after it happens without being able to control it and that because of this lack of “self-protection”, he doesn’t use email or surf the internet. I think this is interesting in that we are creating new responsibilities when problems like this arise and instead of going forward with new media, we are sometimes held back to fix those problems. My question is can we always solve or prevent these problems especially in this new digital/electronic world? -I doubt it, I think human error is more prone in the digital media. Derrida needs to get over it.

Confusion: I got lost in some of his more poetic wording in the interviews. (Seriously, he came up with that on the fly?) What is an “Aufklarung (p.17)”?

Discussion: He talks about “paperless” people and the need to consider what will happen to them, but for the most part this writing seemed to be about implications for scholars and others with access to computers. (“As for those people who, nowadays, don’t themselves use either typewriters or computers, you can count them on the fingers of one hand.” p.29) How does the tech gap change what he says? Is it only a matter of the time frame?

not a key point, but I was interested in the section regarding the ritual of using pen and paper when writing. Does our intrigue with nostalgia affect the writing? Handwritten notes/ideas are far more beneficial to me as I can trace my thought pattern through the captured gestures.

Hard to say if I’m not understanding as I feel as if I’m trying to follow someone running in circles.

I’d be interested in your comments regarding the handless writing discussion. Is this more about the gesture? After all, the writing doesn’t come from the hand, but the mind.

I was unclear about what his absolute stance was on the future of the book’s place in society.

What I would like to be discussed is the idea of virtualization of media. Weather we continue to store things in books or transition to virtual mediums, isn’t it true that the information is still perishable? If this is so which medium is more beneficial? Virtual space has the advantages of efficiency and causing less clutter, but if the technology to access this virtual information were to disappear the information would no longer exist. Physical space creates clutter (the need for places created to store and archive information) but the information can still be accessed with no need for technology,thus, it may remain available longer. What do you think?

Confusion: Am I allowed to say that everything was confusing? In truth it feels as though everything Derrida is trying to explain ends up with more questions then answers. This book, in particular, exists to allow us to question everything. Which is great, but it can also lead to more confusion.

Issues: In this world of “virtual” (which I use in reference to the internet in this case) can there be a pure virtual archive? Will we ever move away from the world of physical (i.e. ones that you hold in your hand) books? I had a very Fahrenheit 451 feeling at the end of the reading this week.

Most of my trouble just comes from Derrida talking a lot, and it takes me a long time to read everything. How many times has he said something along the lines of, “Don’t worry, I’m getting to your question.” I just have to reread to let the ideas sink into my head.

In digital, would we lose that definitive “finished product” that a physical paper seems to represent, or when would we consider something so malleable a finished product? When we can edit what we make public at any time (even in forums, administrators have the possibility of changing anything anyone writes after one has posted), how do we accept something as a finished product? Only when it’s in print on physical paper? Does the concept of a finished product not matter anymore?

I was a little confused with Derrida’s ideas on “a book in the book” (ch.2 p.15) and with the way he draws conclusions about it. I wasn’t sure exactly what he was trying to say about the comparison of books to electronic writing as far their “endings” go. Is he saying books are the same … that neither really end?

I think the reading raises some important issues about how we store and catalog books. Issues about if we will continue to always use and have books and paper. More importantly if paper and books do go away then what happens to our identities? What would be the effects of a shift into an electronic system?