Category Mediated Matters

The Unbearable Impossibility of Perfect Communication

In a powerful op-ed written for The New York Times back in late 2010, bestselling novelist Michael Cunningham writes, ‘I’ve come to understand that all literature is a product of translation’. He explains, and I quote the article at length:

I’ve learned, from working with translators over the years, that the original novel is, in a way, a translation itself. It is not, of course, translated into another language but it is a translation from the images in the author’s mind to that which he is able to put down on paper.

Here’s a secret. Many novelists, if they are pressed and if they are being honest, will admit that the finished book is a rather rough translation of the book they’d intended to write. It’s one of the heartbreaks of writing fiction. You have, for months or years, been walking around with the idea of a novel in your mind, and in your mind it’s transcendent, it’s brilliantly comic and howlingly tragic, it contains everything you know, and everything you can imagine, about human life on the planet earth. It is vast and mysterious and awe-inspiring. It is a cathedral made of fire.

But even if the book in question turns out fairly well, it’s never the book that you’d hoped to write. It’s smaller than the book you’d hoped to write. It is an object, a collection of sentences, and it does not remotely resemble a cathedral made of fire.

It feels, in short, like a rather inept translation of a mythical great work.

The translator, then, is simply moving the book another step along the translation continuum. The translator is translating a translation.

Cunningham is more perceptive than perhaps he admits to himself; he has learned to live without perfection. Translation isn’t perfect because no form of human communication–from speech to smoke signals–is perfect. As long as we cannot read each others’ minds, some amount of misunderstanding will always be inevitable. And so, seeking to transcend that unbridgeable gap between ‘you’ and ‘me’, ‘writer’ and ‘reader’, we promise ‘faithful’ translations of literary works.

The Cool Kindle? On How (Not) to Sell E-Books

While wandering through a vast wasteland of over 200 cable channels the other night I happened across a BBC America marathon of Top Gear. While that show is in itself ripe for sociological analysis, what stopped me dead in my proverbial tracks was one of the advertisements shown during a commercial break. It was for the Amazon e-book reader the Kindle, and it showed a photogenic male and female duo debating the relative merit of printed books versus Kindles. For your reference, I have embedded a streaming copy from the company’s YouTube channel below.

When New Media Becomes Legacy Media

The Social Network (2010), directed by Aaron Sorkin, links the genesis of the now ubiquitous social networking site Facebook to an early, adolescent scheme called FaceMash. Developed by Mark Zuckerberg in 2003 during his days at Harvard, FaceMash was a ‘Hot or Not’-type website which, with the input of visitors, ranked the attractiveness of female undergraduates at the college. Zuckerberg is also shown blogging about his algorithmic exploits on LiveJournal. Unsurprisingly, cinematic allusion to this now Russian-owned website evoked scattered exclamations and chuckles of nostalgia from the audience when I went to see the movie in the theatre. Although it had been a mere seven years since Harvard slapped Zuckerberg with academic probation for overloading the university’s network, LiveJournal had already become the online equivalent of a cassette recorder.

A New Model for Peer-Reviewing Monographs?

Earlier this month in London at the British Sociological Association Annual Conference, during a panel for early career researchers, I asked John Holmwood why the RAE/REF does not seem to rate scholarly monographs as highly as journal articles. Both a book and an article count as one item, but the latter is only one-tenth the number of words. To a freelancer accustomed to being paid by the word, this does not seem fair. And a book published with a good academic press will be peer-reviewed, right? Holmwood, however, pointed out that an academic press’s peer-review is not the same as a journal’s because a press is far more concerned about whether or not the book will sell. This, he was implying, is not meritocratic.

Communication or Credentialing? On the Value of Academic Publishing

Nobody outside of the profession reads scholarly books and journal articles. It’s become a common complaint in the academic world, and among some disciplines such as sociology it’s also de rigueur to take the complaint a step further: Nobody listens to us. American sociologists, for example, look askance at economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and lament the lack of visibility in the media of their discipline. British sociologists, meanwhile, worry about the impending ‘impact agenda’ of the Research Excellence Framework. Although couched in different vocabularies—in the US academy, ‘impact’ typically refers to narrow quantitative measures such as citation counts and impact factors—what scholars are professing to wanting is to make a positive difference in the world.

Critics, Criticism, and Civil Society

I have worked as a critic, and I am socially acquainted with other critics. I have enjoyed many a pleasant meal with critics (the ones who write reviews of anime and manga, at least). I have read hundreds of thousands of words of criticism on topics ranging from consumer technology to scholarly monographs. And as a sociologist, the language of academic criticism has become part and parcel of my daily discourse. Yet despite this critical mass (excuse the pun) of interaction with both the labour of criticism and other critics themselves, one thing has never ceased to baffle me: how critics can believe that something is just a matter of opinion unless it’s their opinion—in which case the opinion is actually true.

The Persistence of Print

Starting today the 28 March 2011, the New York Times will go behind a paywall, following The Times, The Economist, Financial Times, and other subscription-based print periodicals with an online co-presence. For those who choose not to subscribe, access will be limited to twenty articles per month, excluding articles reached through Google’s news feed and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Although there may well be some promising workarounds for the tech-savvy, the bottom line is that heavy users of this website—regardless of where in the world they happen to be located at the moment—will be obligated to pay up USD $455 per year.

Why Didn’t Japan Expect the Worst?

Japan is used to earthquakes. Japanese children grow up practicing earthquake drills in school; building codes are among the strictest in the world. It goes without saying that in another time or place, the 9.0-magnitude earthquake which struck on the afternoon of the 11th of March could have been much, much worse. Yet media reports of the tsunami which breached seawalls, washing entire neighborhoods away, and the escalating nuclear crisis at the Fukushima power plant make it abundantly clear that no matter how well-prepared Japanese society was for this sort of natural disaster, it was not prepared enough.

Media Do Matter

Do you check your email before brushing your teeth in the morning? I must confess that I do, a habit I acquired as an undergraduate whose computer was nearer to her bed than the shared facilities down the hall. On hindsight, it’s shocking how this new medium went in less than a year from being an occasional diversion to a daily necessity. Many people have had similar revolutionary changes in their everyday practices with television, digital library catalogs, the Internet, and mobile phones, to name a few. Yet these media have become so utterly mundane that we rarely think to tell these remarkable stories.

Perhaps that is why media are too often not taken seriously. If you read, as I do, the online reader comments on The Guardian’s higher education coverage, you would see comment after comment calling the sociological study of the media is a ‘Mickey Mouse’ subject, unworthy of meaningful intellectual inquiry. Such views continue, even after having encountered them countless times, as both surprising and dismaying. As a researcher who hails from Mickey Mouse Country, a.k.a. the United States of America (where the name of its favorite cartoon mouse is never taken in vain this way), I would like to believe that I know better than the naysayers.