Instant Publishing

Composition and publication are two different processes, but the distance between them is collapsing. Of the many ways new media trends might be defined, doing so in terms of such time compression, and process amalgamation, is far from the least accurate and predictive. The Internet accelerates writing in this specific way (perhaps among many others) — so that it approaches a near-instantaneous communicative realization, comparable to that of speech.

This can be elaborated variously. For instance, it might be re-articulated as an incremental suppression of privacy. The author of a book lives with his words in solitude, perhaps for years. An essayist, awaiting publication in a periodical, might wait for weeks, or even months. A blogger is consumed by self-hatred if his words remain private by the time he retires for the night, or early morning. A twitter-addict sustains a particle of semiotic privacy for mere seconds. (Speckle comes next.)

Is this a bad thing? No doubt at least as much as it is a good one. It is no surprise to see an increasing number of micro-political statements among writers, amounting to an attempt to backtrack to slow writing, semiotic privacy, or patient non-communication. The book becomes an icon of refusal, set against the gradient of time. Outside new media, there has to be still more of this stuff … (but who notices that anymore?)

Neoreaction in a nutshells says — simultaneously — that progress is a horror story, and there is no going back. (This is a demanding tension, so there are even fewer neoreactionaries than one might think.) Upon accepting this formula, the response to instant publishing is pre-programmed. It is a nightmare become destiny, far more ruinous than has yet been envisaged, while unstoppable to a degree that no thought-processes are still slow enough to entertain. New media is a mind-shredder, into which we shall all certainly pass.

No reactionary denunciation of this trend can be too extreme, but the only format in which it makes practical sense is that of dynamic survivalism. What do we have to become to pass through the cyclone? That, my horrible splintered comrades, is the question.

April 11, 2014admin 11 Comments »


11 Responses to this entry

  • Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week - Page 354 - Ultimate Metal Forum Says:

    […] polsci, were survival oriented. I think that understanding has now been explicitly substantiated: […]

    Posted on April 11th, 2014 at 8:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    New media is a mind-shredder, into which we shall all certainly pass.

    Hmm… if we can be arsed…


    Posted on April 11th, 2014 at 10:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    versicle, scrap of poetry

    narrative compression

    Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and Its Reception
    The Songs of Demodocus: Compression and Extension in Greek Narrative Poetry…. 83, Richard Hunter


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 12:08 am Reply | Quote
  • E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Says:

    No more water rise
    But wind of fire and lightning
    Love of dying suns


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Rorschach Romanov Says:

    Optimistic types are prone to confuse evaluative realism with alarmism- suffice it to say, “instant publishing” is pretty much the end mankind. Extinction is nigh- which, I suppose has always been the anti-Platonic “point” of progressivism- an always becoming extinction.

    Perhaps, in the final analysis, the world is populated by two kinds of humans: the children of Heraclitus and the offspring of Parmenides. To use the language of war, the former has undoubtedly been winning for at least some two centuries.

    To Reactionary souls such as myself, silence has emerged as perhaps the virtue of virtues, given context, embedded in order of absolute fungibility, drawing near the Platonic form of the “Good.” (forgive me Father, for I have sinned in posting here).

    Instant publishing is ‘stream of consciousness’ externalized, plugged into the cloud…I can appreciate classic works in this “stream” vein, but it seems as manifest in instant publishing, consciousness, where applicable to it, verges on a misnomer. If anything, doesn’t “consciousness” have to do with refraction, such that it folds back on itself, contingent on a kind of silence? All gone.

    From utility calculating machines to twitter addicts…next step? Extinction. In the future, men will probably be able to ingest or inject “hedonic (hedonism) units,” quantified pleasure units a la some artificial intervention in neurophysiology…they will Twitter about it. And then painlessly commit suicide.

    Living takes far too long.


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 6:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenean Says:

    Brings to mind David Porush’s essay on illiteracy, cognition, and the digital age collected in Virtual Futures, which also featured our host’s ‘Cybergothic’.


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 6:18 am Reply | Quote
  • alveolar Says:

    nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus!


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 9:54 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Heidegger – from a public address given in 1955 –

    ‘… technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology. These forces, which everywhere and every minute claim, enchain, drag along, press and impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other – these forces, since man has not made them, have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision.”

    And yet –

    “Still we can act otherwise. We can use technical devices, and yet with proper use also keep ourselves so free of them, that we may let go of them any time. We can use technical devices as they ought to be used, and also let them alone as something which does not affect our inner and real core. We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us.
    But will not saying both yes and no this way to technical devices make our relation to technology ambivalent and insecure? On the contrary! Our relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them alone, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent on something higher.”

    It all depends on –

    “… the way of meditative thinking. Meditative thinking demands of us not to cling one-sidedly to a single idea, nor to run down a one-track course of ideas. Meditative thinking demands of us that we engage ourselves with what at first sight does not go together at all.”

    and –

    “I call the comportment which enables us to keep open to the meaning hidden in technology, openness to the mystery. … Releasement towards things and openness to the mystery belong together. They grant the possibility of dwelling in the world in a completely different way. They promise us a new ground and foundation upon which we can stand and endure in the world of technology without being imperiled by it.”

    Full marks for the prescient diagnosis … just not yet entirely convinced regarding the remedy.


    fotrkd Reply:

    [J]ust not yet entirely convinced regarding the remedy.

    Indeed. ‘Good luck with that’ springs to mind.


    Posted on April 12th, 2014 at 8:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    “Pattern recognition in the midst of a huge, overwhelming, destructive force is the way out of the maelstrom … By studying the patterns of the effects of this huge vortex of energy in which we are involved, it may be possible to program a strategy of evasion and survival.” – Marshall McLuhan


    Posted on April 13th, 2014 at 12:14 am Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    I saw the faceless god concealed behind the other gods. I saw infinite processes that formed one single felicity and, understanding all, I was able also to understand the script of the tiger.

    It is a formula of fourteen random words (they appear random) and to utter it in a loud voice would suffice to make me all powerful. To say it would suffice to abolish this stone prison, to have daylight break into my night, to be young, to be immortal, to have the tiger’s jaws crush Alvarado, to sink the sacred knife into the breasts of Spaniards, to reconstruct the pyramid, to reconstruct the empire. Forty syllables, fourteen words, and I, Tzinacan, would rule the lands Moctezuma ruled. But I know I shall never say those words, because I no longer remember Tzinacan.

    May the mystery lettered on the tigers die with me. Whoever has seen the universe, whoever has beheld the fiery designs of the universe, cannot think in terms of one man, of that man’s trivial fortunes or misfortunes, though he be that very man. That man has been he and now matters no more to him. What is the life of that other to him, the nation of that other to him, if he, now, is no one. This is why I do not pronounce the formula, why, lying here in the darkness, I let the days obliterate me. (Borges, The God’s Script)

    The question of silence, addressed by both Borges and Wittgenstein…


    Not only was the course he taught pointedly entitled ‘Current French Philosophy’ – a currency otherwise alien to our curriculum — more importantly, Land’s teaching was also a sharing of his own research-in-progress. This was unheard-of: philosophy actually being done, rather than being interpreted at second-hand?! He would sweep his audience into a speculative vortex of philosophy, economics, literature, biology, technology, and disciplines as-yet unnamed – before immobilizing them again with some startling claim or gnomic declaration.

    To tweet the formula of fourteen words by accident… to share when you don’t know what you’re doing… would that be a burden heavy or light? Perhaps there’s another way?


    Posted on April 13th, 2014 at 10:46 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment