Greenville, SC, has to be one of my favorite cities in the south. It’s about 200 miles from Macon, and it sits at the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, just a couple of hours from Knoxville. Within an hour, you can be zooming along the Blue Ridge Parkway or on your way to the Biltmore in Asheville, NC.

I’ve been to Greenville several times, and I always enjoy myself. This time was no exception. Their revitalized downtown is full of culture, unique restaurants, and plenty of people. If you have a weekend free, you could do worse than a visit to Greenville.

I’m adding several more shots from my time in Greenville to the gallery. Check them out.

I would love to ride a BMW R 1200 R through Scotland. Wow, what a great video. I’d have to have my own camera crew and Autumn in back.

I have my current bike up for sale: a BMW R 1150 R. I thought I had a deal with a local dude earlier in the week, but I never heard from him again. Nice. Maybe I should take that as a sign and hold onto it? I do love to ride. I just wish someone would turn down the heat.

Autumn and I always love visiting Dad and Sharon; we always eat well, drink well, have great conversations, and generally relaxing days. This shot was from my last visit with Dad. It was only he and I for a couple of days, so we were able to get some good father-son time in. I even helped by shooting a wedding for him.

Check out the Pigeon Forge gallery.

Atomized

The other night I sat on the porch with some friends and acquaintances discussing this and that. I had my iPad with me, and I was showing a friend what I had been doing with some old books. I explained that the process of getting the books on my iPad involved destroying the physical form of the book so it could gain a new life in digital form. Someone I hardly know got truly offended: “how can you do such a thing to a book?! I love books, and you’re destroying them!” She couldn’t even look at me.

Her reaction might have been mine just a year ago. Until the iPad came out, I would have been the first to argue that our current incarnations of microprocessing technology – the personal computer – does not provide the same reading experience as a book. Period. Perhaps it’s the nature of the machine that necessitates the opposite behaviors that are required to really read. There is something about sitting down in a quiet corner with a book that inspires careful contemplation, thoughtfulness, and introspection. Real reading – the kind that you need to practice to actually take in something in a meaningful and profound way – deserves all of the attention we can bring to it. One thing I’ve learned from teaching is that you never read more carefully than when you know you have to teach something. This I read books: as if I’ll have to teach the text sometime soon. The web? Not so much.

Reading on the web – probably the most popular form of reading done off a computer screen – is not the same thing. I’m not saying that it necessarily can’t be, but in my experience it is not. Something about the computer – even a laptop – inspires a cursory, quick, and superficial consumption of text. Perhaps because it looks more like a television than it does a book? Perhaps we are trained that what comes to us through a monitor should be consumed in a certain way, whereas that which is found on leaves in a cloth binding must be absorbed in another way. Books are like holy artifacts; computers, to paraphrase Norman Mailer, are machines of the devil.

I still hear people say that they can’t proofread or edit on a computer screen. There’s something about the printed word on a physical sheet of paper that allows our minds to take it more seriously than we would something appearing on a computer screen in a web browser. Seriously, I’m pretty sure I could never read a book on a PC.

Perhaps it’s the notion that what we see on the computer screen is somehow transient and impermanent – that it can disappear with a flick of a switch or the press of a key. Books sit heavily on shelves. They are weighty matter that can be handled and not so easily disposed of. Until recently, the idea of publishing was like, in Gilgamesh’s words, “having one’s name stamped in bricks.” If you were mentioned by a poet, you achieved a kind of immortality. “Literature” deserves this treatment, after all. It is weighty. It matters. It should be in books, not on computer screens. Sven Birkerts echoes this sentiment: “our entire collective history–the soul of societal body–is encoded in print. Is encoded, and has for countless generations been passed along by way of the word, mainly through books” (20). This is significant, no?

Birkerts goes on to lament what he sees as an inevitable paradigm shift away from print to the digital. He states that we have lost the ability to read, and now it seems I am destroying books. What’s going on? Am I really committing some sort of heresy against humanity? Against the holy book?

I think not. The iPad is a new medium, something less like a computer and more like a book. Computers are for business; iPads are for personal time. I create on the computer; I enjoy on the iPad. Indeed, these are too easy generalizations, and there are many crossovers between the two, but I use my iPad in a different way than I use my computer. If anything I can say the following: I read more now because of the iPad than I did just a year ago. This is profound because I am a professional reader. Yes, I do it for a living. I enjoy the experience of reading from my iPad more than I do from a paperback book. I can also carry around a library with me on the iPad, dispensing with the need to pack ten books for a short trip.

The only advantage I can still see in using a physical book is that I can more easily annotate it. Yes, I must annotate all of the books I teach. But I do not teach all of the books I read. I predict within the next year that this will not even be an issue. Apple has already made significant improvements to reading PDFs using iBooks. I also predict that we will be using our word processors to easily make EPUB files that are meant to be read from the iPad rather than printed. Long live the trees!

Yes, we are moving closer to being all digital. This is not something to be lamented.

I tried to explain this to my indignant porch friend, but I’m not sure how convincing I was. In fact, like her, I still have an irrational nostalgia for the book – especially when considering rare or new books – that I will discuss later. Also, I’ll discuss the implications for publishing, especially for those of us who have not been too successful in traditional markets.

Atomized

[box type=”info”]Part Two of Cutting Up[/box]

The other night I sat on the porch with some friends and acquaintances discussing this and that. I had my iPad with me, and I was showing a friend what I had been doing with some old books. I explained that the process of getting the books on my iPad involved destroying the physical form of the book so it could gain a new life in digital form. Someone I hardly know got truly offended: “how can you do such a thing to a book?! I love books, and you’re destroying them!” She couldn’t even look at me.

Her reaction might have been mine just a year ago. Until the iPad came out, I would have been the first to argue that our current incarnations of microprocessing technology — the personal computer — does not provide the same reading experience as a book. Period. Perhaps it’s the nature of the machine that necessitates the opposite behaviors that are required to really read. There is something about sitting down in a quiet corner with a book that inspires careful contemplation, thoughtfulness, and introspection. Real reading — the kind that you need to practice to actually take in something in a meaningful and profound way — deserves all of the attention we can bring to it. One thing I’ve learned from teaching is that you never read more carefully than when you know you have to teach something. This I read books: as if I’ll have to teach the text sometime soon. The web? Not so much.

Reading on the web — probably the most popular form of reading done off a computer screen — is not the same thing. I’m not saying that it necessarily can’t be, but in my experience it is not. Something about the computer — even a laptop — inspires a cursory, quick, and superficial consumption of text. Perhaps because it looks more like a television than it does a book? Perhaps we are trained that what comes to us through a monitor should be consumed in a certain way, whereas that which is found on leaves in a cloth binding must be absorbed in another way. Books are like holy artifacts; computers, to paraphrase Norman Mailer, are machines of the devil.

I still hear people say that they can’t proofread or edit on a computer screen. There’s something about the printed word on a physical sheet of paper that allows our minds to take it more seriously than we would something appearing on a computer screen in a web browser. Seriously, I’m pretty sure I could never read a book on a PC.

Perhaps it’s the notion that what we see on the computer screen is somehow transient and impermanent — that it can disappear with a flick of a switch or the press of a key. Books sit heavily on shelves. They are weighty matter that can be handled and not so easily disposed of. Until recently, the idea of publishing was like, in Gilgamesh’s words, “having one’s name stamped in bricks.” If you were mentioned by a poet, you achieved a kind of immortality. “Literature” deserves this treatment, after all. It is weighty. It matters. It should be in books, not on computer screens. Sven Bickerts echoes this sentiment: “our entire collective history–the soul of societal body–is encoded in print. Is encoded, and has for countless generations been passed along by way of the word, mainly through books” (20). This is significant, no?

Birkerts goes on to lament what he sees as an inevitable paradigm shift away from print to the digital. He states that we have lost the ability to read, and now it seems I am destroying books. What’s going on? Am I really committing some sort of heresy against humanity? Against the holy book?

I think not. The iPad is a new medium, something less like a computer and more like a book. Computers are for business; iPads are for personal time. I create on the computer; I enjoy on the iPad. Indeed, these are too easy generalizations, and there are many crossovers between the two, but I use my iPad in a different way than I use my computer. If anything I can say the following: I read more now because of the iPad than I did just a year ago. This is profound because I am a professional reader. Yes, I do it for a living. I enjoy the experience of reading from my iPad more than I do from a paperback book. I can also carry around a library with me on the iPad, dispensing with the need to pack ten books for a short trip.

The only advantage I can still see in using a physical book is that I can more easily annotate it. Yes, I must annotate all of the books I teach. But I do not teach all of the books I read. I predict within the next year that this will not even be an issue. Apple has already made significant improvements to reading PDFs using iBooks. I also predict that we will be using our word processors to easily make EPUB files that are meant to be read from the iPad rather than printed. Long live the trees!

Yes, we are moving closer to being all digital. This is not something to be lamented.

I tried to explain this to my indignant porch friend, but I’m not sure how convincing I was. In fact, like her, I still have an irrational nostalgia for the book — especially when considering rare or new books — that I will discuss later. Also, I’ll discuss the implications for publishing, especially for those of us who have not been too successful in traditional markets.

Work Cited

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1994.

Apparently, Wednesday nights in Memphis, TN, are for motorcycles on the famous Beale Street. Fortunately, Memphis was our stop this night, and Giles and I had some good food, excellent beer, and plenty to photograph downtown. Beale Street had the energy of Bourbon Street in NOLA, packed into about a block. It seems like everyone was there taking in the atmosphere and admiring the motorcycles.

Later, we had dinner at the famous Charlie Vergo’s Rendezvous (a great place for vegetarians – not) and walked it off in the summer heat back on Beale Street. The next day, before I had to leave for St. Louis, we took in the “Who Shot Rock & Roll” exhibit at the Brooks Museum. Talk about some nostalgia; it contained photos I knew well and some I’d never seen before. If you have the chance, check it out.

Most of the images in the gallery will eventually be available on Regional Imagery for licensing.

I spent Tuesday, July 6 in Birmingham with my friend and Regional Imagery founder Giles. We stayed in the south part of downtown near the university, and from there we walked around the historic section of this surprisingly nice city. Most of the photos in the gallery are from this walk.

We also had a chance to get in the car and see some more of Birmingham, and I’m glad we did. I did not pack my iPad’s power supply, so I had to go to the Apple store to pick up another. This allowed us to drive through some parts of town we would otherwise have not seen: green parks, hilly roads, and little villages led us all the way to the Apple Store. As I said above: Birmingham was a pleasant surprise.

Most of the images in the gallery will eventually be available on Regional Imagery for licensing.

I saw Chris Nolan’s Inception last night, and while it had some weak points, I enjoyed it. It reminded me a bit of Steven Soderbergh’s interpretation of Solaris. Both films deal with the protagonist’s regret and the projection of that regret into their lost loves. While the planet of Solaris is the catalyst for Kelvin’s image of Rheya, Cobb’s projection of Mal haunts his subconscious. Both Kelvin and Cobb are tortured by the suicide of their wives, and both films are about their attempt to hold onto the past. In this way, they create their own reality that seems to trap them.

It’s interesting how this theme continues to be explored, particularly in film. Indeed, both Solaris (2002) and Inception (2010) share a similar theme with the The Matrix (1999) and Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972) before that. I might even put Blade Runner (1982) in this list. And while I’m sure there are more, all of these films deal with the idea of the real versus the ersatz, and how we project our images of how-it-aught-to-be onto the how-it-is. Indeed, what is the real? This is a question that has been at the forefront of science fiction at least since the cyberpunks.

In Inception, the brain is a computer to be hacked. The interface comes in a steel briefcase that joins the participants with wristbands. This machine seems to put them asleep immediately, and they all meet in the virtual world of someone’s subconscious. Instead of projecting into a matrix that is out there, the network has become the mind of a single person. As Cobb says in the film, we both create and experience that creation at the same time in dreams. Now that’s computing power. They never explicitly compare the brain to a computer network in the film, but the implication is obvious. Whereas the cyberpunks saw the body as a sack of meat that contained the reality of the mind, Inception privileges the material world and knows the mind is the best access to it.

I can read Soderbergh’s Solaris as a comment on virtuality, perhaps Inception is concerned with genetics. The former seems to caution us about the affect of ubiquitous computer networks (Solaris itself is just a big computer that feeds back what is put into it), and the latter is ultimately interested in how the body is literally affected by technology and ideas.

In fact, the idea seems to become reality. That is the whole idea of “inception” in the film. Like typing a command on a keyboard and pressing enter to activate it: the word becomes real. When our bodies are the computers, this is significant.

I can’t help but notice within Inception the Homeric theme of coming home. I don’t want to give away the ending, but as Odysseus finds out: a homecoming can be dangerous. Home, especially in all of the films I mention above, seems to represent a comfortable place – where we want to be and where we think we belong. Yet, in these films, and Inception is no exception, “home” is an irrational projection that can trap us.

One of the great things about a home is that we must leave it occasionally to work, to shop, to travel, to grow. It’s the leaving of home that makes it valuable, one could argue. But what happens when you come home permanently? I think this is how both Soderbergh’s Solaris and Tarkovsky’s Solaris end. Each are ambiguous, but each also suggest that Kelvin has made a choice to retreat into a fantasy, rather than continuing to live in a painful world – what we would call the “real world.”

Check out Inception. I need to see it again to tweak these ideas a bit further.

Inception: Reality in the Word

I saw Chris Nolan’s Inception last night, and while it had some weak points, I enjoyed it. It reminded me a bit of Steven Soderbergh’s interpretation of Solaris. Both films deal with the protagonist’s regret and the projection of that regret into their lost loves. While the planet of Solaris is the catalyst for Kelvin’s image of Rheya, Cobb’s projection of Mal haunts his subconscious. Both Kelvin and Cobb are tortured by the suicide of their wives, and both films are about their attempt to hold onto the past. In this way, they create their own reality that seems to trap them.

It’s interesting how this theme continues to be explored, particularly in film. Indeed, both Solaris (2002) and Inception (2010) share a similar theme with the The Matrix (1999) and Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972) before that. I might even put Blade Runner (1982) in this list. And while I’m sure there are more, all of these films deal with the idea of the real versus the ersatz, and how we project our images of how-it-aught-to-be onto the how-it-is. Indeed, what is the real? This is a question that has been at the forefront of science fiction at least since the cyberpunks.

In Inception, the brain is a computer to be hacked. The interface comes in a steel briefcase that joins the participants with wristbands. This machine seems to put them asleep immediately, and they all meet in the virtual world of someone’s subconscious. Instead of projecting into a matrix that is out there, the network has become the mind of a single person. As Cobb says in the film, we both create and experience that creation at the same time in dreams. Now that’s computing power. They never explicitly compare the brain to a computer network in the film, but the implication is obvious. Whereas the cyberpunks saw the body as a sack of meat that contained the reality of the mind, Inception privileges the material world and knows the mind is the best access to it.

I can read Soderbergh’s Solaris as a comment on virtuality, perhaps Inception is concerned with genetics. The former seems to caution us about the affect of ubiquitous computer networks (Solaris itself is just a big computer that feeds back what is put into it), and the latter is ultimately interested in how the body is literally affected by technology and ideas.

In fact, the idea seems to become reality. That is the whole idea of “inception” in the film. Like typing a command on a keyboard and pressing enter to activate it: the word becomes real. When our bodies are the computers, this is significant.

. . .

I can’t help but notice within Inception the Homeric theme of coming home. I don’t want to give away the ending, but as Odysseus finds out: a homecoming can be dangerous. Home, especially in all of the films I mention above, seems to represent a comfortable place — where we want to be and where we think we belong. Yet, in these films, and Inception is no exception, “home” is an irrational projection that can trap us.

One of the great things about a home is that we must leave it occasionally to work, to shop, to travel, to grow. It’s the leaving of home that makes it valuable, one could argue. But what happens when you come home permanently? I think this is how both Soderbergh’s Solaris and Tarkovsky’s Solaris end. Each are ambiguous, but each also suggest that Kelvin has made a choice to retreat into a fantasy, rather than continuing to live in a painful world — what we would call the “real world.”

. . .

Check out Inception. I need to see it again to tweak these ideas a bit further.