Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Deep

Although we were in the very deepest of known depths, there was something not unpleasant about it. And, besides, we were beginning to get accustomed to this troglodyte life.

(Jules Verne, A Journey to the Interior of the Earth)

I saw this painting once in a friend’s studio, a tall and narrow wall-length canvas with a small, minutely painted pastoral landscape at the bottom underneath a narrow band of blue sky which soon turned to blackness the rest of way to the top. It was a vivid representation of just how much sky there is above our heads, how much space – a vast ecosystem that for the most part we do not inhabit, and that yet sustains us. When we were kids we used to do just the opposite: draw big houses and big trees and big people, and then scribble with our pencils a tiny strip of blue at the very top of the page to signify the sky. It was the world as seen from the surface, a world without depth.

But of course there are vast expanses below, as there are above. It’s just that we are less prone to conceptualise or visualise our lived environment along its vertical axis. Geological eras are often represented on a straight up-and-down line, but human history goes from left to right, in the direction of progress, that is to say forward. This also happens to be how a book works: it has a beginning and an end, and you read it from one to the other, for the most part and with the due exceptions. If Maryanne Wolf is correct then it is primarily in this form – within the horizontal linear paradigm of print literacy – that we exercise our deep reading, that is to say immerse ourselves in narratives and arguments with the necessary concentration and thus effectively ‘engage in [the] active construction of meaning’.

If there is a clash between these two geometries – the linear book, the deep reading – nobody seems to pay much attention to it. Certainly not Nicholas Carr, who has stretched Wolf’s argument in order to draw the conclusion that on the web, in this other space, lie the shallows, a region that we are condemned to wander in a permanent state of fretful inattention. One of the book’s cover designs provides a visual representation of the metaphor:

It’s an image that is consonant with a broader set of analogies concerning the internet, such as surfing and skimming, two of the most common descriptors of the way we approach textuality on the networks (that is to say, by staying as close as possible to the surface). And of course the association between information and the sea has long had a popular, bankable appeal. Remember Netscape?

I still find this splash screen nostalgically appealing – faster computers have made splash screens themselves obsolete – as I do the idea of navigating information. Charting a course and using the stars for guidance is a far richer and more romantic image than browsing, or the utterly prosaic act of opening a window. But to use seafaring as a guiding metaphor for our experience of the internet also allows to reconnect with the idea of depth.

Harry Clarke's 1919 illustration for Edgar Allan Poe's 'A Descent into the Maelström'

That old incarnation of Netscape was as web 1.0 as it gets. It was the early years of the mainstreaming of the internet, when most of us still spent most of our time online trying to get our heads around all that life-changing novelty, and adjusting to being suddenly able to access a baffling range of different kinds of knowledge. Also: it was still okay in those days to use a starry night sky as the background for your homepage. There were few conventions and fewer templates, and so clicking on a link still caused a certain frisson, for you could reasonably expect to be taken – very, very slowly – somewhere truly strange.

The thing about colossal squid is that they live at depths beyond our capacity for exploration. For all we know, the ones that drift up so far as to be caught in our nets may be the dwarfs of the species. And who can say what else lives down there, and how, in the near complete darkness and at freezing cold temperatures? They must be odd creatures indeed to even just match the colossal squid, whose metabolism is so slow that 30 grams of prey per day are said to be enough to support its 10-metre frame.

Now on the other hand the thing about web pages – and this was true even in those early days when loading 30 kilobytes of text took actual time – is that their dimensions are virtually limitless, but convention has settled into the vast majority of them having a portrait aspect, like book pages. This may strike as the obvious, natural choice, except computer screens are actually in landscape, and there is no compelling reason why texts couldn’t be displayed on a single continuous line. Indeed occasionally they were in the days of Netscape 2.0, although this was generally because the author of the page had stuffed up the coding. At any rate, fixing the margins at the sides and allowing the page to scroll downwards is how electronic texts worked well before the internet, and it has practical advantages – if you wished to print long single-line texts you’d need one of those old fashioned ticker-tape printers, which would be good for little else.

I digress: my point is that whilst a single page in a printed book is taller than it is wide, successive pages are bound side by side, and so the book is an object that proceeds on a horizontal line, whereas a web page – in which one might find the content of whole books, if not whole libraries – proceeds on a vertical line. For how long? Well, like I said, there is no theoretical limit, although there may well be practical ones. I have just tried composing a 20,000 line post that Blogger accepted without a hitch (warning: it’s a dreadful pun, I should be ashamed of myself). And again I’m sure there would be practical issues – such as, where would you store it? – but one could conceivably design a crawler that instead of indexing the content of web pages simply copied them all onto a master page that would thus reproduce in real time the Whole of the Internet, including past versions of every page as soon as it is updated and as many copies and translations of Borges’ 'The Library of Babel' as people see fit to upload.

And still people wouldn’t read it.

That’s the complaint, isn’t it? That people don’t read on the screen, that they skim, that they jump from link to link, that they stop to check their email. Cory Doctorow has called the internet an ‘ecosystem of interrupting technologies’. There is truth in that, as in the anecdotal and increasingly empirical evidence that young people who learned to read around the time that Netscape 2.0 was released have trouble dealing with dense written texts in print form.

The page reproduced above comes from the 4th-Century Codex Sinaiticus and is an example of scriptio continua, meaning that there is no separation between words, as was the common practice in ancient codices. Until at least the time of Saint Ambrose even the most highly educated people read aloud anyway, so the separations between the words would have been apprehended when one listened to oneself, as we do when we are in conversation, for words actually blend with one another in speech. Going back to the codex, I dare say that we would struggle to penetrate those walls of words, highly literate creatures that we are, and that in that density lay the roots of a culture that placed an inordinate importance in the value of each word, of each square inch of illuminated text (and of the precious paper on which it was written).

Nowadays the space between words, between concepts, is no longer a commodity. I would try your patience but waste nothing but electrons if I started leaving

big, abitrary gaps in the middle of sentences, or if I wrote
hastening the descent. And so the geometry of our texts is changing, and as the idea of bottomless pages and of the changed interplay between full and empty spaces becomes more ingrained we shall start to see some new possibilities, and begin to innovate our architectures of meaning. Perhaps even capture some of the strangeness that lurks in the darkest recesses of the abyss.

I suspected that web artists and illustrators might be at the forefront of this, and that if anybody had begun to exploit page depth as a native form of digital expression, it would be them. And so I asked Dylan Horrocks, and he asked his friends, and together they came up with some fine examples that I am going to leave you with. Beginning close to home with the always excellent Drawing Silence and his infinite canvases, continuing with raphaelB’s very funny and marvellously scrollable Il revient et il bave (good also for my collection of falls) and Jellyvampire’s artist’s plea, but most of all Scott McLeod, whose sublimely fluent use of the portrait aspect in Zot would be the kind of thing that would make me call off the search, were it not for the work that he has done in The Right Number.

In this three-part graphic novella (part three is as yet unpublished), McLeod has dispensed with scrolling altogether: depth is achieved instead by zooming into each panel to reveal the one that follows it, and so forth until completion. The idea, straight out of Giordano Bruno, is that each pixel can potentially expand into a whole world of narrative and meaning, and the effect – a little dizzying – is that of peering into cyberspace, the space behind, beneath the screen. It is also a text that forgets itself in the act of reading, as each panel recedes somewhere behind your retinas as the new one comes into view.

There is nothing in the anaemic 3D currently peddled in our cinemas that matches the sense in McLeod’s work that a conceptual, virtual space is being concretely represented before your eyes, and that you could physically reach inside the screen and manipulate it. And this too is a deep reading of sorts, one that engages with the spatial dimensions of our containers of text and is worthy of reflection. For if sustained attention, understanding and the ‘active engagement in the construction of meaning’ are to be found at all in the new medium, it will be through its native forms and in its natural language.

With many thanks to Dylan Horrocks and Greg Bennett, Dick Whyte, David Larsen, Paul Graveson, Morgan Davie and Shaun Craill for the expert advice.


Matthew Dentith said...

Dammit; halfway through reading this post I was thinking "I must tell him about Scott Mccloud's"Zot," only to find you not only mention Zot but reference another Mccloud work I've yet to read.

This is my Apple fanboi moment; I find reading long (and dense texts) much easier on the iPad than I do on the computer and I think it's because you can only see one application at a time. When I'm working on the desktop or the laptop I can see my twitter stream and my email client behind whatever I'm doing whilst on this device whatever I'm doing is the only thing I can see.

Which makes me wonder whether this supposedly new inability for people to devour complex texts in the computer age is really all that new. Before twitter streams and having to manage five email accounts I used to avoid reading long texts and the like by doing housework or picking up a novel or some other activity I felt was necessary to do so to avoid doing work. Now I have the internet and its many wonders to do the same job but with the luxury of my never leaving my desk. Distraction has never been so easy, but it still feels, to me at least, like classical distraction, now with more electrons.

Sean Sturm said...

Indeed, deep and shallow doesn't work anymore (old hermeneutic metaphor); intensity is better. DeLanda would say that intensities breed form via attractors — punctal, cyclic or strange attractors (see Delanda's Deleuze, Diagrams and the Genesis of Form). I was rather bemused to read Birkerts (p)rehearse Carr in The Room and the Elephant in the LA Review of Books. (Great post, Giovanni.)

Giovanni Tiso said...


"This is my Apple fanboi moment; I find reading long (and dense texts) much easier on the iPad than I do on the computer and I think it's because you can only see one application at a time. When I'm working on the desktop or the laptop I can see my twitter stream and my email client behind whatever I'm doing whilst on this device whatever I'm doing is the only thing I can see."

That seems to me to be the main virtue of an ebook reader, the silencing of the rest of the internet (to the extent that they do - more and more I fear the extra functions will become integrated). Doctorow discusses this stuff in the article I linked.

"Distraction has never been so easy, but it still feels, to me at least, like classical distraction, now with more electrons."

I tend to agree, and as I always say: before the internet, there was Solitaire, and before Solitaire, actual solitaires. But then in these transitions differences in degree can be so significant as to become differences in kind, so I think there is an argument to be made there even though I personally don't feel terribly distracted.

Draw said...

@ Matthew Dentith
"Distraction has never been so easy"
I love this, I know the feeling.
@ Giovanni Tiso
Thank you for the link and the kind words. Also fantastic article! Especially making connections between different ideas from different disciplines.

hahaha word verification: ZINES

Anonymous said...

The scroll bar tends to hinder my attention. When reading a block of text larger than the average blog-post my eye starts to skirt back and forth to the scroll bar to chart my progress down the page. It seems always to be stationed somewhere just below the half way point. I guess that's habitually about the time my mind wanders and I become more tempted by hyperlinks. Even in your post which held my interest all the way, I still found myself checking the scroll bar a few times. In retrospect this habit does harken back to checking your position in a novel by looking at the text block edge. I think we're always inherently preparing to move on to the next beginning. A culture built on elaborate gateways, grand foyers, and customs check points. Interiors often betray the promise of a stately entrance, and back doors are we're you dump the trash.

Matthew Dentith said...

You know, we could write a paper on the epiphenomenalism of distraction from an anti-reductionist perspective.

Giovanni Tiso said...


"In retrospect this habit does harken back to checking your position in a novel by looking at the text block edge."

That's really interesting, and I can say for me that an element that conspires against concentration when I read online is not having a very good sense of just how long the text I'm reading is going to be. Books are great at giving you a sense of spatial awareness and keeping it continually updated (Alan Jacobs is a very acute observer of these things).

Ben Wilson said...

I'd say that an increased focus on scan reading is a fairly natural consequence of a superabundance of the written word. There's so much to know, so little time, that only old fogies like me want to actually pore over dense chunks of text.

Interestingly, I noticed this difference in written philosophy when I studied it - the old stuff really did go in for the tedious clots of writing, the deciphering of which was almost as hard as reading a foreign language, but more modern stuff (well OK I'll leave out postmodernism) seemed far more capable of getting to the point quickly, without any real drop in the depth of what was actually being said.

Sarah & Philip Steer said...

I think it's interesting that most of your discussion is about the web as a source of information, but your examples at the end are literary in nature. (Or, put another way, you could see it as a movement from text-based to visual forms.)

Do you see any kind of difference between the kind of reading that the literary and the informational requires? And, as a consequence, are their forms being transformed in similar or different ways by digital media? Or is this a false dichotomy that just reveals my naivety?

Giovanni Tiso said...

I’m not sure that it’s a false dichotomy, but my main concern tends to be textuality, of which the literary and the informational are subsets. I just don’t always find the further distinction immediately useful. For instance if you say “the kind of reading that the literary and the informational requires”, it skews your discussion towards the presumption that the literary and the informational exist outside of the media, and impose their conditions on them, when it’s just as often the opposite. I think the Gutenberg Project is a good example, for its architects arguably applied an informational paradigm to literature, dumping whole books into single (and geometrically very deep) web pages in the form of plain text. It was an almost disdainful affront towards some of the most cherished and long-sedimented aspects of book culture, yet scholars and lovers of literature on the whole have found it very useful, and continue to do so.

That said, the relationship between the two modes is enormously complex. You could make a reasonable argument that the literary is broadly dominant in book media, and that the informational is broadly dominant in digital media, but it’s not easy to trace a clear distinction when it comes to individual texts or even groups of texts. It is a fundamental tenet of digital ideology that we should think of everything in terms of information (as in one of my top most hated phrases: ‘The Library of Congress contains X terabytes of information’). Obviously I resist that. Yet the word information is quite handy to describe the content of a computer network, and so I use it. But the first half of this post shouldn’t be taken to apply solely to informational texts, even though browsers like Netscape were predominantly designed to exchange those.

Giovanni Tiso said...


I am... a little behind on my assignment - still have to read that DeLanda essay from when you
blogged about it. Your summation was fascinating and I need to do some serious reading before I can respond, except to say that diagrammatic forms struck me as one of the most notable omissions in Carr's book. How do you critique the way that digital media organise and present information without once referring to the stuff? That said, experimental research into e-learning is often just as blinkered.

(The typical Carr scenario is as follows: researchers took two groups and got one of them to read a short text in print, the other one to read the same text on a computer screen with hyperlinks. Then they measured how well the subjects in the groups remembered the text contents. I don't think I need to belabour how daft an approach that is.)

Lyndon said...

Peculiarly apt interpretation of 'depth' in this XKCD http://xkcd.com/485/

[It's mostly like that as an exension of 'Height' http://xkcd.com/48c2/]

Giovanni Tiso said...

The link for Height is http://xkcd.com/482/, I was going to include it in the post. However I hadn't come across Depth before and it's *brilliant*. Thanks muchly.

Murphy said...

I once had the idea of creating a 'library of babel' webpage - the idea would be that logging into the site would generate a single book according to the rules of the story. You could browse the text, but then would be given two choices; return the book or destroy the book, meaning that that particular book could never be 'generated' again for anyone else, ever. I thought it would be interesting to be given the power of elimination over a text, as well as the hope that something might pop up in your searches.
Obviously this came to nothing, however...

George D said...

It's interesting to me that the Netscape logo references space so directly (its relationship to exploration you've already noted).

This speaks of the disembodiment that the early internet (1.0, or however we describe its iteration) embraced. Like the 'depth' comic Lyndon mentions, you could float or fly without fixed referent. The cybernaut was to lose location, and find themselves in murky depths of blackness or green between sparkling white text. They could literally lose themselves in depths of information and ideas. It seems as naive as the techo-optimism that followed the birth of flight or the nuclear age. Now, of course, we are anchoring to real identities in the service of commerce and everyone knows I'm a dog.

These are different types of engagement, and I don't know if one is better than the other.

bmk said...

That's really interesting, and I can say for me that an element that conspires against concentration when I read online is not having a very good sense of just how long the text I'm reading is going to be. Books are great at giving you a sense of spatial awareness and keeping it continually updated (Alan Jacobs is a very acute observer of these things).
This is one of the things I love about my Kindle is the percentage tracker so you can know where you are even better than with a traditional book.

I was always one of those people who said they would never use an e-reader but I succumbed to one and now find that I read more than ever. I actually find the text easier to read than ink on paper and without any of the fatigue that normal electronic screens give.

Giovanni Tiso said...

"I once had the idea of creating a 'library of babel' webpage"

I wanted to start a blog with daily postings of Queneau's hundred thousand billion poems... I haven't gor around to it either. I like the idea that you could permanently disappear a web page from the potential library though, much as the chances of producing the same text again randomly would be less than infinitesimal.

Speaking of The Library, you might enjoy this version of the story translated from the original Spanish by Babelfish.

Anonymous said...

You might be interested in this little scrolling experiment...