Tag: books

  • Sam Clemens, compositor

    With the publication of my new book, Hot Type, I’m sharing brief excerpts to give you a sense of the stories in it. Mark Twain is the Zelig of the tale, reentering often, as if a tour guide. Here, he comes on stage as Samuel Clemens, a young printer’s devil working in his brother’s Hannibal newspaper before hitting the road as a tramp printer. This is my way to explain the job, the craft — the art, some would say — of setting type. Following this in the book is an account of the tremendous technological innovations in publishing — steam-powered presses, stereotyping, the telegraph — that Sam saw in this period, all of which will lead the way to the Linotype. But you won’t find that here. You’ll have to buy the book .


    In 1847, at age eleven, a fatherless Samuel Clemens begged his mother to let him leave school to work. Two years later, after Sam’s teacher decamped Missouri to join the California Gold Rush, Jane Clemens relented and allowed her son to undertake an apprenticeship at Joseph Ament’s Missouri Courier in Hannibal. He worked as a printer’s devil — composing room dogsbody — for no pay, only food, board, education in the trade, and the promise of two suits. Sam slept on the floor of the office above Brittingham’s Drugstore and received just one suit, a too-large hand￾me-down from the too-large publisher, which “gave me the uncomfortable sense of living in a circus-tent.”

    After serving two years, Sam went to work in the Hannibal Journal, a paper bought and run by his brother Orion. It was a dreadful weekly blatt filled with endless transcripts of boring speeches, treacly serialized fiction, and random, useless items passing for news: an inch of snow in St. Louis the week before, a robbery a state away in Illinois, how many brooms orphans manufactured daily in Cincinnati (twenty dozen). In Sam Wheeler, Detective, Sam the author described a village paper that might as well have been his brother’s.

    It was a wretchedly printed little sheet, being very vague and pale in spots, and in other spots so caked with ink as to be hardly decipherable. The first column was occupied by “Original Poetry” of the sappiest description. The next four were occupied by a selected story which was as sappy as the poetry. The remaining column of this first page was made up of short paragraphs of vapid, heart-breaking, infuriating rot entitled “Wit and Humor.” The other outside page was built wholly of advertisements: three columns consisted mainly of glorified quack-poisons . . . headed with blurred portraits of the assassins who invented the nostrums, and tailed with lying testimonials from people who had never existed; the two remaining columns were thrown into one, which sang the praises of “Bagley’s Celebrated One-Price Emporium” in riotous display-lines of forty-line pica shot full of shouting exclamation points.

    The Clemenses were not noted for their business acumen. The boys’ father, John Marshall Clemens, failed at running multiple general stores. As will become clear in these pages, Sam would prove to be a disaster at business, saved from poverty and obscurity only by his talent as a writer and speaker. Brother Orion was the least proficient of the clan. Stumbling into the newspaper business when he worked as a printer in St. Louis, Orion returned to Hannibal to buy the Journal for $500 on credit, and he promptly cut the price of a subscription from $2 to $1 a year and reduced the price for advertising. “Thus,” said Sam, “he created one absolute and unassailable certainty — to wit: that the business would never pay him a single cent of profit. The paper was a dead failure. It had to be that from the start.”

    In the Hannibal Journal, Sam began to write in his rascally voice under the noms de plomb of Rambler and Epaminondas Adrastos Blab, not yet Twain. Once, when Orion was away, young Sam took the opportunity to write and print a news item, illustrated with a childish woodcut, mocking the editor of a rival newspaper, who had purportedly gone to the river to put an end to his lovesick misery. “The satirized editor at first swore that he would thrash the whole Journal office, then he left town and did not come back any more,” reported Twain’s biographer, Albert Bigelow Paine. Said Sam: “My literature attracted the town’s attention, but not its admiration.”

    Mostly, Sam set type, fitting it in page forms, inking it, pressing dampened paper atop it. He was, according to Orion, good at the job, “as swift and as clean as a good journeyman.” Sam stood at the typecase with the text to publish in front of him and a composing stick in his left hand. With the practiced sixth sense compositors acquire, his right hand reached for the correct box from which to pluck the next letter, capitals in the upper case, the rest organized by frequency of use in the lower case — the biggest box for e. Light was supplied by windows in the day, at night by a candle stuck in the d box, dripping its tallow on the k box next to it.

    This was not a task for the fumble-fingered. Each metal letter was small, less than an inch long and no thicker than a half-dollar. Sam’s finger felt for a notch molded into one side of a letter’s shaft to make sure it was positioned correctly. Then he added it to his composing stick with a clink. The letters were mirror images of how they would appear in print. As the line filled up, he needed to think ahead and decide whether to split the next word — compositors had to know rules of spelling, hyphenation, punctuation, and grammar. Once that was done, he calculated the spaces, thin or thick, needed between each word to evenly fill out — to justify — the line.

    Typesetting, justifying, and correcting all the words in just the paragraph above could have taken an hour of Sam’s labor. Once the type was set, the compositor’s job was still not done, for after the sorts were used in the press and cleaned (in the stench of long-ago composing rooms, that was accomplished with lye and often urine), they had to be redistributed back into their proper nooks in the typecase for reuse. That was not so simple as it sounds, for one had to read each piece of type in mirror image, making sure not to confuse the d and b — minding, as they say, one’s p’s and q’s. At a big-city paper, that paragraph above might have earned Sam twenty-three cents. Orion promised to pay his brother $3.50 a week but “he never was able to pay me a penny as long as I was with him.”

    On the press, Sam worked with a colleague. One of them inked the type laid out in a form on the bed of the press. The other placed a dampened sheet of paper in a holder called the tympan, folding down a protective frame called the frisket. He turned a winch called the rounce to move the form and paper under the press’ flat, horizontal platen. Pulling the press’ handle brought the platen down onto the paper and type, transferring ink and text. He then winched the bed back out. The paper came off the type with a kiss, a sticky smack, and they did it all again, as often as 250 times in an hour. The speed of that process determined the natural limit of a newspaper’s circulation: how often the pressmen could pull that lever in the time between the news being set in type and it becoming too stale to sell. The Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge’s Penny Magazine figured in 1833 that the maximum press run for a daily newspaper was 5,000; for a weekly magazine, 20,000. That ceiling on the scale and reach of media was about to explode. And all the skills Sam learned as a journeyman printer would eventually be rendered obsolete by a succession of new inventions….


    More excerpts:

  • Introducing my book ‘Hot Type’

    With the release my new book, Hot Type, this week, I will post some good bits in hopes of enticing you into reading it. Here, from the introduction, is a preview of the many delightful rabbit holes I explored building the story of the invention of the first successful typesetting machine, the Linotype, and with it, the birth of mass media. You can order the book here. Please.


    The story of the Linotype is many stories in one.

    This is, first in my mind, the story of the advent of mass media and its consequences: speed and scale, attention and reach, capital and control. In the early nineteenth century, before the mechanization and industrialization of print, the average circulation of a daily newspaper in the United States was only 4,000, limited as it was by the speed and power of human muscle to set its type and pull its press. By the end of the Civil War, steam-powered presses began to speed up production of print at a scale never imagined. Cheap paper manufactured from wood pulp made books, magazines, and newspapers cheaper than ever to publish and buy. Railroads carried these publications and their influence ever farther, while also providing a new time and place to read. The telegraph brought news from around the world as fast as lightning. Literacy was rising fast.

    One man (and it was almost always a man) stood in the way of media’s explosive progress and potential: the typesetter at his typecase, adding letters to his composing stick a click at a time. To hand-set the type in just one page of this book would have taken the average compositor as long as two hours. That is why the growing media industry eagerly awaited the invention of a machine to automate the job. “It is discreditable to the inventive genius of this country that the one great mechanical want of our time is still unsupplied,” New York’s World cried in 1869. In an Industrial Revolution rendition of “if we can fly to the Moon why can’t we . . .?”, The World pleaded: “We want the means of supplying the demand for reading matter. The inventive talent of the country produced the steamboat, the cotton-gin, and the electric telegraph.” Why not yet a typesetting machine?

    This is the story of that invention. Hundreds of failed typesetting
    machines littered the nineteenth century, as did scores of abandoned attempts to build its mechanical precursor, the typewriter and the keyboard. Here I will recount the work of inventors who failed and the few who finally succeeded in revolutionizing print and publishing: Christopher Latham Sholes with the typewriter; Ottmar Mergenthaler with the Linotype; and finally, Steve Jobs with his Mac and John Warnock and Charles Geschke with PostScript, the inventions that wiped out all textual technologies that came before. Their histories are seeded with insight and inspiration, frustration and failure, collaboration and the rare eureka!

    This is the story of Mark Twain. He is the Zelig and zeitgeist of our tale, for he will return often. Young Sam Clemens was a typesetter on his brother’s newspaper in Hannibal, Missouri. He was a tramp printer wandering from composing room to composing room across the country, witnessing technological progress in the trade. He wrote for newspapers. As Mark Twain, he was perhaps the first beneficiary of media made mass — and his celebrity helped make it. But the Linotype was his bête noire, for Twain invested his fortune in a would-be competitor, the Paige Compositor. Its inventor, James W. Paige, was a pathological perfectionist, equal parts brilliance and flim-flam, and it was because of him — and other failed business judgments — that Twain’s publishing house folded, sentencing him to bankruptcy and bitterness. Some say it robbed the great man of his sense of humor.

    This is a story of technology and our adjustments to it. In the midst of his struggles with the Paige Compositor, Twain wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. It reflects Twain’s — and society’s — enamored affair with the technological and new, as the Yankee introduces electricity, steam, telegraph, telephone, and newspapers to Camelot. At its end, the book exposes Twain’s disillusionment with dark modern arts, culminating in a technological Armageddon that foretold the hell of the First World War. Reexamining the technological disruption of the time could not be more relevant to us today as we grapple with the consequences of a connected world and artificial intelligence.

    This is the story of labor and technology’s costs and benefits. One might assume that typesetters — the people — wished to destroy typesetters — the machines — as the Luddites smashed looms and Captain Swing rioted against threshers. But no. The International Typographical Union (ITU) recognized the inevitability of the Linotype’s success and made one consequent demand: that its members should be the ones to learn and operate it. After short-term job losses, that strategic foresight led to tremendous growth in employment and in union power — until the trade faced superseding technologies. Inside this labor history is an examination of gender and race. The typewriter was gendered female, bringing women into the new workplace of the office. Typesetting and the Linotype were gendered male, as women were excluded from composing rooms. So was Frederick Douglass’ son, refused membership in the ITU — even while he and his father published their newspapers — because he was Black.

    This is the story of capital and early-stage capitalism in the era Twain named the Gilded Age. Because publishing required investment in complex and expensive machines — presses and Linotypes — writing and public discourse became the domain of corporations. Here enters a villain in this opera named Whitelaw Reid, who stole the New York Tribune out from under its founder, Horace Greeley; who forced Ottmar Mergenthaler out of the company he made; who used Mergenthaler’s machine to keep union printers out of his composing room; and who peeved Mark Twain on multiple occasions.

    And this is the story of the culture’s relationship with text in a grand arc from the goose quill (and its eventual industrialization with the steel-nibbed pen); to Gutenberg and his material, movable type; to the typewriter, allowing anyone to produce a printed page; to the Linotype and its profound impact on all publishing. The arc of this saga ends with the technology that replaced all that: the computer program called PostScript, which describes letters as shapes alongside other images, opening the way for desktop publishing and the democratization of print — and ultimately the internet and all things digital.

    In the end, this is less a story of machines than of human beings: the triumph and tragedy of Ottmar Mergenthaler; the grand friendship and loyalty of his muse and supporter, a presidential stenographer named James O. Clephane; the sad sack inventor of the first successful typewriter, Sholes, with James Densmore, the dogged booster who made it successful; the young woman named Gussie Lewis Troup, who founded a typographical union for women; the 1960s union boss, Bert Powers, whose strikes killed six of nine newspapers in New York while he saved the livelihoods of his members; and the unsung publishing consultant Jonathan Seybold, who connected the dots needed to make writing and publishing on screens possible. You will be introduced to these and other leading players in the Typothetae Personae that follows, and will hear their voices, often in florid and charming Victorian speech, throughout the book.

    “The history of the invention of the typesetting machine is a novel or a drama in all its ups and downs,” wrote Karl d’Ester, a German scholar of newspapers and communication. This is that drama. In the first chapter, you will meet Sam Clemens as a printer’s devil, learning to set type. As a tramp printer, he traveled the nation and witnessed disruptions that threatened print’s old ways. As Mark Twain, he threatened staid Eastern culture as he chronicled and named the age and its upheavals. Everything about printing was changing — everything except typesetting. The industry awaited the machine that would finally automate even that slow, complicated, and expensive job.

    In the following three chapters, you will see the experiments and failures that preceded both the typewriter and typesetter — most notably Twain’s folly. Then you will meet the inventors who won, learning their bittersweet life stories and, in Chapter Four, witnessing the eureka! that made the Linotype possible. The following two chapters track the success of the Mergenthaler Linotype Company as it ushered in the age of mass media, and as media moguls — and Twain as a wannabe publishing mogul — searched for business models to sustain their new industry.

    Next comes the rich tale of labor’s relationship with the machine, from the founding of America’s oldest trade union to the antics of the Swifts, the speedy typesetters who, odd but true, turned their craft into a spectator sport; to the union leaders who led their members to safety in the Linotype age; and finally to their denouement at the hands of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Next comes the end of all that and the beginning of what replaced it: the computer and desktop publishing. Then I return once more to Twain and his disillusionment with technology, celebrity, and humankind.

    After it all, I offer my typographical autobiography, for I had the good fortune to live and work in the transition from hot type to cold, material to digital. There I will reflect on how these changes affected my relationship with writing and publishing as a journalist.


    More excerpts:

  • Announcing ‘Intelligence: AI and Humanity’

    Bloomsbury Academic is announcing the launch of a new book series: Intelligence: AI and Humanity. I’m humbled, delighted, and honestly amazed to say that I will be the series editor.

    Intelligence is a venue for writers from a wide array of fields and areas of expertise to reflect on artificial intelligence as a mirror to society and culture. Books in this series will not be technical — not about artificial intelligence as technology. Instead, they will examine AI’s meaning to our lives and collective humanity. AI’s entrance into public discourse as a literate machine challenges us to reexamine our views of intelligence, creativity, language, learning, authority, humanity. The intended audience is broad, both academic and trade: anyone with an interest in AI and its profound implications for us all.

    The first three books and authors we’re announcing represent the range of perspectives we wish to offer. 

    • Dr. Rumman Chowdhury, CEO and cofounder of Humane Intelligence and a pioneer in the field of applied algorithmic ethics, asks the first and fundamental question raised by AI: What is intelligence?
    • Dr. Charlton McIlwain, Vice Provost and Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU and author of Black Software, will examine whether and how Black Americans could use the opportunity of AI to overcome years of white technological oppression. 
    • Dr. Matthew Kirschenbaum, the Commonwealth Professor of Artificial Intelligence and English at the University of Virginia, warns of the coming Textpocalypse, altering our relationship with text forever. 

    I hope to see authors proposing books to reflect on fundamental questions raised by AI and to explore how AI in turn reflects on society, for AI replays to us the collective notions, misapprehensions, clichés, and biases of those who have had the power and privilege to publish in the past. I want to see books that challenge presumptions about AI and power, creativity, education, democracy, sustainability, religion, history, artistry, collaboration, and countless topics I’ve yet to imagine. 

    Featuring scholars, public intellectuals, journalists, and professionals, books in Intelligence will be written by authors from many fields — history, psychology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, communication, community studies, linguistics, literature, religion, classics, economics, law, government, and the arts — and from diverse and global perspectives.

    Almost seven decades ago, Sputnik overthrew the humanities in favor of science, technology, and mathematics in American education, policy, and culture. But now that the machine can speak our languages, the CEOs of some AI companies say schools should stop training computer scientists in favor of developing domain expertise. Could this, then, be the revenge of the liberal arts major?

    The humanities and social sciences have been largely left out of deliberation about technology and its impact on society. Intelligence will provide them their place at the table, to bring their perspective, expertise, and inquiry to critical discussion of this technology and the opportunities, perils, and questions it presents.

    Print required capital to control. Electronics required expertise to operate. AI is different in that its tools are designed for anyone to use. All one needs is human language and a phone or a keyboard or geeky eyeglasses to seek, organize, and query information or to command a computer to create text, image, sound, or code. 

    That potential for broad and fast adoption of these tools is why Bloomsbury Academic and I believe this series is needed, providing space for writers to stand apart, to observe, to ask key questions, and most of all to challenge readers to understand and undertake their roles in the future of these technologies and society. 

    The series it the brainchild of Haaris Naqvi, Director of Scholarly and Student Publishing for Bloomsbury US and Global Editorial Director of Bloomsbury Academic. Haaris has been the wise, supportive, and patient editor and publisher of three of my own books. One day, Haaris called and asked whether I thought a book series on AI was a good idea — and whether I would like to edit it. Well, of course. We compared our hopes and plans for the series and found ourselves in quick kismet. 

    So now here we are. We plan to publish three to five books a year, each an independent work through which we hope readers will be led to more books in the series. Prospective authors may submit proposals— emailing intelligencebloomsbury@gmail.com — to be reviewed by us, outside reviewers, and the Bloomsbury board. The decisions will not be mine alone. I will be eager to hear suggestions for both subjects and authors. 

    We also plan to hold a series of events featuring writers and ideas covered in the series. Watch this space and listen to the AI podcasts I cohost —  Intelligent Machines and AI Inside — for announcements and updates.

  • Telling the story that defies telling

    Jonathan Freedland’s The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World is perhaps the single most effective chronicle of the Holocaust I have read.

    Freedland does not attempt to convey the full scope of the Holocaust or of Auschwitz; that is an impossibility in any literature. He tells the story of one man, Rudolf Vrba — born Walter Rosenberg — who as a teenager memorized every detail of death in the camp and became one of only four Jewish prisoners ever to escape, so he could tell the world and hope to save lives.

    There are, of course, countless excellent studies and stories of Auschwitz. What impresses me so about Freedland’s is his discipline in staying close to his subject, seeing through his eyes alone — and his subject’s discipline, in turn, gathering facts.

    Freedland is a journalist, an incisive thinker who, in my experience, commanded any conversation I witnessed at The Guardian, where he was head of opinion and is still a columnist. The Escape Artist is a work of journalism that I cannot help but see as a work about journalism, as it brought me to reflect on my field.

    Freedland begins with the escape, then tells of Vrba’s capture, subjugation, and survival and of all he witnessed and recorded in his memory. When he manages to leave and find refuge, he and another escapee pour every fact, every number — even the sequences of numbers registered to and tattooed on prisoners and their relationship to their place of origin and date of arrival — to a committee of Jewish leaders in their home country. Their report is typed up in spare, sparse language recounting only the facts. At first, as Freedland relates, Vrba is upset that it does not include a warning to the Jews of Hungary, for based on what these two men saw and heard, they are next on the trains. The leaders refused to include anything that is not based on verifiable fact — no speculation, no prediction — to assure the credibility of the report. There is a lesson for journalism.

    The report, in various versions and translations, makes its way to London and Washington and also into the hands of journalists, who finally begin to get word out about the horrors, though far too little is done. What strikes me here is the value of witness. Vrba committed a profound act of journalism; without his observation and memory and courage, there would have been no reports.

    I won’t go on, only will recommend that you read or listen to the book yourself. I am going to try — and likely fail — to post more about books I am reading to share recommendations with you (and hope to read more recommendations from from).

  • Start the presses

    A set of very happy announcements from the CUNY Journalism School and the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism:

    * First, we are opening the new Cuny Journalism Press. Yes, I said press. On paper. And screen. Working with the innovative OR Books and John Oakes, we are creating a press that will produce print books and e-books about journalism and by journalists with new business models (starting with a higher share of revenue to authors). Just as we are working here at CUNY on new business models for newspapers and magazines and other denizens of the printed page, so do we want to see new models come to book publishing. So my dean, Steve Shepard, my colleague Tim Harper — who is heading up the press — and others here thought it would be a great idea to start this enterprise. We’ll be announcing some other related activities with Oakes soon.

    * Second, I’m thrilled to announce that the first book to be published is by none other than @acarvin, aka Andy Carvin, the man who tweeted the Arab Spring and showed us all a new way to think of journalism and how it must add value to the flow of information the net now enables. Distant Witness: Social Media, the Arab Spring and a Journalism Revolution, will be released later this year (and available for pre-order soon). I recommend the book to you all. I’ve had the privilege to read it — and write its foreword. A snippet:

    Andy is a prototype for a new kind of journalist. He also turns out to be a masterful storyteller. He has taken all he witnessed from afar in the Arab Spring and crafted it into a dramatic, compelling, informative page-turner. He has combed his archive of more than 100,000 tweets and sifted through the rapid-fire, staccato progression of the voices to find a narrative sense and create a cohesive saga….

    Yes, we still need reporters on the ground to ask and answer the questions. We need them to bring us perspective and context. Andy does not replace them. He and his nodes and networks of witnesses, participants and experts add to the news in ways not possible before. Journalism is not shrinking. Through Andy’s example, as well as through experiments in data journalism, crowdsourcing, hyperlocal sites and innovations yet to come, journalism is growing. Andy Carvin is proof of that.

    * Tim Harper announced another three titles: Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers, by former New York Times chief counsel James Goodale; Investigative Journalism in America: A History, by Steve Weinberg, a member of the University of Missouri Journalism School faculty and co-founder of IRE, the leading association of investigative reporters and editors; and The Pleasures of Being Out of Step: Nat Hentoff’s Life in Journalism, Jazz and the First Amendment, by CUNY Journalism Professor David L. Lewis, a former Daily News reporter and “60 Minutes” producer and associate producer who is also directing a feature-length documentary on Hentoff.

    If I manage to get off my duff and get moving on a project I’ve been working on, I might add to that bookshelf myself.

    Just as CUNY saw an opportunity for a new journalism school when others thought journalism was dying, so did we see an opportunity to start a new press about journalism even though others declared books dying. At Tow-Knight, I believe we must not only study and teach new models but we must also help incubate them. The CUNY Journalism Press is one such effort.