<< Пред. стр. 5 (из 6) След. >>
Список литературы по разделу
ai?eciio i?eaaiee 9, 53, 100, 140
A?oiia ? (ni. oae?a eeiie?aneee ciae) 85, 182
Aoaiyi, Iaeunii 74
aaeiino?oeoeaeci 124, 125, 127,
134, 137, 162 aaiioaoey 100
Aae?c, ?eeu 119-120, 131
Aa??eaa, ?ae 8, 10, 100, 124-127, 149
A?aeienii, O?aa?ee 62, 188
A?aien, ?a?ec 57, 117
A?ien, A?ain 14, 16, 24, 25, 94-95, 98-99, 101, 108, 138, 142, 170
A?ia, Aeaenaia? 26, 56, 168—170
?ieeianeee, Aeaenaia? 8, 10
ca?aaue niune 70, 75, 127, 144, 149, 154, 163, 174, 177-179
ciae 11, 13, 14, 20, 32, 65-66, 73, 76, 79-80, 84-86, 89-91, 99, 106, 112, 114, 116-117, 120-125, 127-129, 139, 146, 174, 176-177, 184, 187
eaaieiaey 11, 29, 30, 36, 37, 40, 42-43, 45, 50-52, 66-67, 79, 83, 86, 88, 113-115, 120, 129, 132, 136, 146-147
eaeieaeo 99, 109
Eca?, Aieuoaaia 131-132, 136-138, 142
ecioiiey 36, 98
eeiie?aneee ciae (ni. oae?a eiaaen, neiaie) 65, 73, 76—78, 81, 84-86, 89, 92, 114, 173-175, 187
eieoaoey 27, 53, 64—65, 114
195
eiaaen (ni. oae?a ciae eeiie?aneee, neiaie) 128, 171
eioa?i?aoaioa 11, 20, 122, 124, 128, 175-176
eioa?i?aoaoeaiia niiauanoai 8, 54, 57
eioa?i?aoaoey 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20-22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 52, 63-64, 68-69, 74, 76-77, 79, 85, 93, 95-98, 100-101, 107, 117-118, 120-128, 130-131, 133-136, 139-154, 157-162, 166, 170, 174-177, 179, 182-187
eioa?oaenooaeuiinou 16, 20, 21, 26, 54, 59-61, 187
Eaeea?, A?iiaoai 18, 22, 131, 154, 161-162
Eaio, Eiiaioee 13, 15, 76, 86, 116, 139, 173, 175
eeii 41, 64, 76-86, 90-92,110, 115, 138, 145, 186
eeiioai?ey 76—77, 79, 82
eeiiycue 78, 81-84, 89-91
eeo? 49, 53-54
eiaieoeaiue oei 182—184 eiau 19, 28, 35, 38, 78, 82-84, 86, 88-92, 96, 99, 117-118, 138, 147, 150-151, 162
- aini?eyoey 50—51, 54, 89
- eeiie?aneea 88—89
- eeiaiaoia?aoe?aneee 7, 76-78, 82, 84, 89-91
eiiioieeaoey 38, 46, 51, 79—80, 83-84, 90-91, 101, 115, 117-118, 126, 134, 136-137, 141
- aecoaeuiay 26, 77, 106, II, 112, 173, 187
- ianniaay 13, 15, 39, 41, 44, 49-50, 52, 58, 106
eiiaaioee 83-84, 86, 88-89, 100, 109, 117, 131, 149, 167, 169, 187
- nioeaeuiua 75
- ?ai?iaua 11, 169-170, 174
- eoeuoo?iua 92, 97, 117, 181, 183
eiiiioaoey 118, 158 eiioaeno 10, 11, 16, 26, 31, 42-43, 67, 70, 77, 84, 91, 96, 99, 102, 107, 115-116, 118, 125-127, 130-132, 135-137, 142, 144-145, 150-151, 154, 158, 162, 171, 175, 186
eiio?eoeuoo?a 41, 49
eiiey 65, 68, 70-73, 75
eoeuoo?a 28, 46-49, 52, 70-72, 74, 77, 83, 86-90, 94-97, 104, 106, II, 116-117, 119-120, 138, 147, 155, 175, 179, 183, 188
- aa?ieei 106
- ao??oaciay 45
- Aic?i?aaiey 62
- aunieay 8, 46, 48, 52
- a?aaiaa?a?aneay 29, 67
- ianniaay 8, 16, 26, 40-51, 53-54, 112, 186
- iaoa?eaeuiay 48
- iinoiiaa?ienoneay 54, 63, 188
- n?aaiaaaeiaay 27—28, 30, 31, 62
- yeeoa?iay 26, 41
eoeuoo?iay eiaono?ey 40, 45, 47—48, 52
eoeuoo?iua enneaaiaaiey 46, 48, 115, 138
Eao?aoen, Oa?aca aa 19, 40
Ea Aioo, ?ae 27, 28,
Eaae-No?inn, Eeia 10, 28, 37, 87, 132-133
Eeioa?, O?ainoa 8, 62
Eiee, A?ii 112-113, 121
Eioiai, ??ee 7, 8, 10, 43, 79, 96, 104, 141-142
Iaee?yi, Ia?oaee 41, 110, 168
Iaeea?ia, Noaoai 108, 114
Ia?ei Iiei 15, 179-181
Ia?en, Ea?e 25,46, 49, 114
Ia?oeia, Aia?a 82
iaaeaaenoeea 14, 15, 24, 26
iaoaoi?a 59, 94, 98-99, 118, 129, 147-148, 151, 154, 163, 166, 170, 175
Iaoo, E?enoeai 10, 77-78, 82-83, 96
iiioa? 80—81
196
Ii??en, ?a?ec Oeeuyi 85, 139, 173-174
Iineianei-Oa?ooneay oeiea 9, 43, 102, 104, 115
ia??aoi? 138, 141, 152, 163-165
ia??aoey 56, 57, 172
Ia?aaeu, ?a?a? aa 156, 164-165
icia?aaiia 19, 32, 91, 118, 121-123, 125-126, 174, 176
icia?a?uaa 9, 19, 118, 121-122,125
Ieeai, Oeeuyi 9 iiiiceoey, aeia?iay 36, 118, 125
i?eaeiae 53, 68, 70-71, 73-75
Iacieeie, Iua? Iaiei 77—78, 81-83, 90-91
Iaiioneee, Y?aei 27, 28, 30, 31, 33
iainaieioeci 118, 186
ianoeo 14, 39
Ia?ae?iinou (ni. oae?a Ie?n) 73, 117, 181
ia?niaeoeaa, eeiaeiay 88, 95, 122, 132, 183
Ie?n, ?a?ec Niiaa?n 9, 11, 15, 38, 73, 78-79, 85, 112-114, 117, 121-129, 142, 148, 173-174, 176-177, 180-182, 184, 186
Ieaoii 106, 178, 184
iiaoi?aiea 7, 55, 70
iiaaaeea 64, 66, 68—75
iieenaiey 31, 93, 98
Ii?yaie (ni. oae?a I?eai?ei, A?ien, Eioiai, oain) 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 102, 117, 119, 120
iinono?oeoo?aeeci 8, 69, 161
iiyoeea 14, 19, 22, 23, 25, 35, 93-95, 105, 129, 134, 139, 148
i?aaiaoeci 125, 161
i?aaiaoeea 71, 127, 131, 137
i?iecaaaaiea 35, 54, 57, 68-72, 75, 84, 94-97, 99-101, 117, 129, 132-136, 138-139, 146, 156, 164-165, 171-172, 185-187, 189
- a-aae?aiee 95, 185
- ioe?uoia 8, 11, 13, 16, 76, 93-97, 99-100, 102-103, 105-106, 129, 132-134, 138, 145, 148, 170
?ai?acaioaoey 11, 53, 73, 77—78, 87-91, 114, 116, 119, 124, 172, 175-176, 178, 183
?aoa?aio 63-65, 67, 74, 85-86, 90-91, 116, 122, 124, 126, 128, 150, 174-175, 183-183
?aoaioey 9, 11, 41, 50, 57, 130-132, 135-139, 141-143, 145, 148, 185
?aoeieaio 57, 60, 96, 114,133, 135, 137, 143, 150-151
?eciia 119-120
?eiaee (remake) 60—61
?eoyee (retake) 60—61
?eooaoa?, Iaeee 59, 131-132, 136-137, 141-142
?i?oe, ?e?a?a 18, 22, 124-125,
127, 146-148, 153-154, 161-162, 177
Naaaie, Oiian 113
naieicen, iaia?aie?aiiue 11, 20, 80, 83, 116, 120-126, 128, 140, 148, 154, 157, 162, 175-176, 178, 181-184, 186
naieieiaey 7, 10, 38, 77, 90, 112, 114-115, 121, 123, 125, 174
naieioeea 38, 41, 70, 76-77, 80-81, 83-84, 87, 92, 102, 104, 112-119, 121-123, 125-126, 131, 136, 142, 144, 147, 150, 173-176, 178, 181, 184, 186-187
- eiiioieeaoee (ni. oae?a naieioeea neaieoeeaoee) 51, 118
- iauay 10-12, 25,
- naieioeea eeii 83
- naieioeea eoeuoo?u (ni. oae?a Iineianei-Oa?ooneay oeiea) 9, 43
- neaieoeeaoee (ni. oae?a naieioeea eiiioieeaoee) 118
na?eeiinou (ni. oae?a "na?eeiay ynoaoeea") 57
na?ey 60-61, 83, 177
neiaie (ni. oae?a eiaaen, ciae
197
eeiie?aneee) 83—84, 119, 121, 123, 148, 154
neioeye? 63, 64, 188
neioeyoey (ni. oae?a Aia?eey?) 64
neiaa?u 100, 118-120, 127, 161, 168
nia?ou aaoi?a 123 niiauaiea 49, 50-55, 59, 76, 78, 80-81, 84, 90-91, 93, 96-97, 99, 118, 129, 137, 150-151, 159, 171
Ninn??, Oa?aeiaia aa 79, 113-114, 116, 121-123, 125-126, 174, 184
no?oeoo?aeeci 9, 11, 36-38, 77, 112-114, 134-136, 147-148, 161, 164
noaia 33, 37, 59, 61, 64, 77, 94, 96, 103, 144, 146, 168, 171, 181-182
noieanoeea 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36-38, 94
noaia?ee 16, 60, 129, 166
oaenoiaay eiiiaoaioey oaenooaeuiua no?aoaaee 129, 138, 163, 166, 185
oaenooaeuiue aiaeec 36, 76, 92, 131, 144
oaeaaeaaiea 26, 39, 43, 47, 76, 186
Oiai?ia, Oaaoai 10, 113, 141, 145
oiiin 21, 34, 35, 56, 58, 99
O?aoe?iinou 181
Oeeeein, A?ii 87, 149-150
Oniaineee, Ai?en oaeuneoeeaoey (ni. oae?a eiiey, iiaaaeea) 70—71
Oaa?, E?nuai 27, 28,
Oeo, Noyiee 57, 136-137
oieaeecaoey 141
Oiia Aeaeineee 14, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 74, 103, 173, 186
oiiaia 36, 82-83
oi?ia 13, 30, 35, 53-54, 61, 74, 95-97, 11, 103, 111, 113-115, 119, 124-125, 128, 137-138, 145-146, 152, 154, 156-157, 164, 171, 175, 181-182, 186
oi?iaeeci 135
O?aea, Ceaioia 22, 25, 60, 119
o?aei (ni. oae?a noaia?ee, Aai Aaee) 59-60, 129
Ooei, Ieoaeu 8, 28, 118, 141, 146-147, 160, 168, 186
oain (ni. oae?a I?eai?ei, A?ien, Eioiai, ii?yaie) 29, 94, 97, 102-105
Oaeceiaa, Eioai 31
Oi?eoaeia?, Iaen 41-42, 45, 47-48
Oeauyi, ??ee 60
?eoaoaeu 8, 35, 56, 93, 95-96, 98, 100, 102, 108, 123-124, 129-134, 136-142, 145-146, 148-149, 152-153, 156-171, 174, 185-187, 189
- "ioeaaie noaiaie" 138
- a?oe?eoaoaeu 138, 141
- ae?ooaeuiue 138
- eaaaeuiue 19, 131-132, 138, 142
- eiieeoeoiue 131, 138
- e?eoe?aneee 16, 57, 100, 152
- iaoa?eoaoaeu 138
- iaeaiue 9, 16, 57, 152, 163, 165
- ia?acoiaue 7, 20, 21-22, 59,76, 99-100, 131-132, 138, 142, 147,158,163-164, 166, 169-170
- iia?acoiaaaaiue 132, 138, 141, 158
- ?aaeuiue 15, 18, 131-132, 138
- yiie?e?aneee 11, 57, 133, 158, 166, 169
Yeeio, Oiian Noa?i 56
yio?iiey 14, 104
yioeeeiiaaey 16, 28, 33, 34, 58, 87, 100, 106, 118-120, 168-170, 175, 179
yienoaiieiaey 36, 37, 62, 93, 167, 173-174, 184, 188
198
ynoaoeea 81, 93, 112-113, 115, 139, 164, 173, 188
- "na?eeiay" 53, 57, 61
- "oainiina" (ni. oae?a A?ien) 24
- eeanne?aneay 15, 55, 61—62
- iiaa?ienoneay 7, 55
- iinoiiaa?ienoneay 7, 54, 57
- ?aoaioeaiay (ni. oae?a Eca?, ?onn, Oeo) 132, 134, 136
- n?aaiaaaeiaay (ni. oae?a Oiia Aeaeineee) 24, 25
"yooaeo ?aaeuiinoe" 81, 85, 114, 168, 171
?eianii, ?iiai 10, 19, 37, 79, 96, 113, 121, 126, 133-134, 142
?iiieuneee, Ieoaee 88 ?onn, Oain ?. 132, 136-137, 142
199
Iao?iia ecaaiea
Aeuie?a ?eoiaia ONIAIIAA
oiaa?oi Yei:
IA?AAIENU EIOA?I?AOAOEE
Ae. ?aaaeoi? E. Eiaaeiia
?aaaeoi? A. Oaioui
Ooai?iee A. Oaai??aiei
Ei??aeoi?u A. Naaeoeay, 3. Aoaaoeia
Oaoie?aneee ?aaaeoi? A. Oeouei
Iiaienaii a ia?aou 23.05.1999 a. Oi?iao 60x90 (1/16). Aoiaaa ionaoiay. Aa?ieoo?a "Mysl". One. ia?. e. 12,5. O?. eca. e. 12. Oe?a? 2000 yec. Caeac ? 170.
CAI "I?iieeae". EA ? 220 io 17.02.1998 a.
220030, a. Ieine, i?. O. Nei?eiu, 24.
Oae.: (017) 232-70-36, oaen: (017) 229-23-55, e-mail: publish@chu.unibcl.by
Aa?iiaeneee aoiaieoa?iue oieaa?neoao, EA ? 438 io 29.02.1998 a. 220030, a. Ieine, i?. O. Nei?eiu, 24.
Ioia?aoaii a oeiia?aoee III "Iiaai?eio". EI ? 285 io 28.07.1998 a. 220007, a. Ieine 7, a/y 16, a. Ieine, oe. ?iaeineay, 2.
Iiiia?aoey iinayuaia enneaaiaaie? oai?aoe?aneeo eaae aeaiiai eoaeuyineiai naieioeea, iaaeaaenoa, oeeinioa Oiaa?oi Yei. aaoi? noaaeo ia?aa niaie caaa?o aaanoe a iao aeaaaie?aneee eiioaeno iaeioi?ua ec iaeaieaa aa?iuo eiioaiooaeuiuo ?ac?aaioie Yei e auyaeou ii?aaaeaiio? eiaeeo yaie?oee aai aanuia ?aciiia?aciuo oai?aoe?aneeo eioa?ania: enneaaiaaiey ii ianniaie eoeuoo?a e oeeinioey Oiiu Aeaeineiai; e?eoeea no?oeoo?aeecia e eiioaioey ?eaiaiey eeiaiaoia?aoe?aneiai eiaa; eeoaeneea eiieenu e n?aaiaaaeiaay oai?ey ciaea; ynoaoeea iaiaaaiaa?aa e i?iaeaia eeiie?iinoe o Ie?na; oaia ?iee ?eoaoaey e enoi?ey iieneia niaa?oaiiiai ycuea a aa?iiaeneie eoeuoo?a; iinoiiaa?ienoneay eeoa?aoo?a e... neiaii, Eaio e ooeiiin, Ia?ei Iiei e iini?ia, Ie?n e caa?a... O?eouaay, ?oi ee??aaie oaiie iiiaeo ?aaio Yei auea i?iaeaia oaenooaeuiuo no?aoaaee, oi anou oao ioiioaiee, eioi?ua neeaauaa?ony ia?ao oaenoii e aai ?aoeieaioii n oi?ee c?aiey iienea aa?aioee "i?aaeeuiie" eioa?i?aoaoee, noa??iaaie i?iaeaiie aaiiie eieae noaea i?iaeaia eioa?i?aoaoee.
Aiiieiaiey WWW
A Conversation on Information
An interview with Umberto Eco, by Patrick Coppock, February, 1995.
A chain-smoking and jovial Umberto Eco receives me in his crowded, untidy but cheerful little office at the Institute for Communication Studies at the University of Bologna. A bay-window opens out onto a tiny balcony overlooking the garden of the villa where the institute has its offices and library. The walls of the office are covered with rows of well-filled bookshelves; a sofa along one wall is full of piles of papers, books and articles, a modest writing desk hidden under even more books and papers. In one corner of the room is an IBM 486 clone with Windows, a new article or book obviously in progress on the screen. Eco offers me a chair in front of his desk.
In advance I had given him a list of some possible issues we might discuss so he would have some idea of what was on my mind: Computer technology, the Internet community and processes of cultural change. I begin by asking:
"Professor Eco, you're a man of letters, a writer, philosopher, a historian. On the desk beside you is a computer. Is modern computer technology actually functional for you as an author and literary researcher?"
Eco glances over at the computer, smiles, then nods thoughtfully:
Yes, but sometimes the computer can also give paralysing results. I will give you an example: I was invited by Jerusalem University to a symposium whose theme was the image of Jerusalem and the temple as an image through the centuries. I did not know what to do on this particular topic.
Then I said to myself, well OK, I have worked with stuff from the beginning of the Middle Ages; my dissertation was on Thomas Aquinas.
He points to the rows of well-filled bookshelves on my left...
Here I have all the works of Thomas Aquinas with a reasonably good index, and I looked there to see how many times he quoted Jerusalem and tried to say what use he made of the image of Jerusalem. Now, if I only had these books - well, that index is a reasonable index which focuses only on the larger, more intensive treatments of the word 'Jerusalem' - I would have found say 10 or 15 tokens of 'Jerusalem' which I would have been able to examine. Unfortunately I now have the Aquinas hypertext...
He glances again at the computer in the corner...
and there I found, that there were - well I don't remember the exact number - but there were round 11,000 or so tokens...
"Oh my God!"
Well at that point I quit!
"Yes, that's far too much material at one time, obviously."
Working with 11,000 references is just impossible. That's far too many.
"So the system you use doesn't 'filter' well enough in other words?"
I cannot manage to scan as many as 11,000 tokens. Now, if I had only my old traditional limitations then I would probably have done something more or less reasonable on that particular topic.
"That's because the human person who is searching does it in a kind of sensible, intuitive way, whereas the computer just does it in a very mechanical way and just picks out every single example?"
My theory is that there is no difference between the Sunday New York Times and the Pravda of the old days. The Sunday New York Times that can have 600 or 700 pages altogether really just contains old news fit to print. But one week is not enough to read a number of the Sunday New York Times. So therefore, the fact that the news items are there is irrelevant, or immaterial, because you cannot retrieve them. So what then is the difference between the Pravda, which didn't give any news, and the New York Times which gives too much? Once upon a time, if I needed a bibliography on Norway and semiotics, I went to a library and probably found four items. I took notes and found other bibliographical references. Now with the Internet I can have 10.000 items. At this point I become paralysed. I simply have to choose another topic.
"So information overload and this extreme, non-intuitive selection of information is the main problem?
Yes, we have an excessive retrievability of information. It is neither ironical nor paradoxical, I think, what has happened with Xerox copies.
Eco picks up a pile of papers from the desk in front of him and waves them.
Once I used to go to the library and take notes. I would work a lot, but at the end of my work I had, say, 30 files on a certain subject. Now, when I go into the library - this has happened frequently to me in American libraries - I find a lot of things that I xerox and xerox and xerox in order to have them. When I come home with them all, and I never read them. I never read them at all!
"No, same here: you never seem to have the time, do you? Once you know that it is there, you feel reassured, and so you don't read it."
Exactly...
"Xeroxing then can paralyse your reading activity? That's another risk?"
Sure...That's another risk which is sometimes very real.
"Yes, well then, what do you think about the idea of these personal information filters. This idea that you can kind of make a personal profile, and the system will search Internet on the basis of this?"
This is what I call the art of decimation...
"Decimation?"
Decimation. You kill only one person out of ten...
He gestures towards the well-filled bookshelves again.
The number of books that only concern my specific domain, not to speak of the other ones that I receive weekly certainly, exaggeratedly, overwhelms my reading...
"Your capability, capacity?"
...my capability, my time. If you have a certain experience you are able to... well, you can make a very random decimation. On this or that subject for instance, there may be no more than ten possible new ideas. It is rare that that is the case.
"And the working hypotheses you make are based on these?"
So .. if I read only one out of ten books, probably there will be an idea in there I can find, and if it is not there, then it will be in the next group of ten books that I pick up. But this is a very random thing.
"But it is also very much based on your past experience, obviously?"
Oh, sure, it is random, but based upon past experience.
He reaches for a book from his desk and begins to thumb through it.
OK, now I am able to open this at the first page, to look at the summary, to see the bibliography and to understand if the fellow is reliable or not; if there is something new there or not. And since I have long experience, my decimation is oriented. I sense it is better that I read this, and not that etcetera.
"So you are able in a way to recognise newness, or innovation?"
In a way, in a way. I can commit mistakes of course, but if I make a mistake today, I probably won't do that tomorrow. Possibly I may choose to disregard some book or other and that may be a mistake, but the next week I will come across yet another book, and so on. But a student of 20 years old, or even of 30 does not have this kind of filtering ability. We have to invent a practice, a theory. A practice or training in decimation.
"Well now, how do we do that?"
Eco leans forward eagerly in his chair.
Well, it still has to be invented. There must be some rules. There are some very elementary rules such as: control the dates of the bibliography for instance. If you are working on a certain subject you may find many references from 1993 and 1994. But in relation to other subjects finding only references from 1993 and 1994 might be negative, you ought to be finding some older dates.
"Exactly."
So if you read a book on Kant and you have only a bibliography from the nineteen-nineties then this is suspect. The author is working from secondary sources. If you are reading a book on hypertext and you find an old bibliography then this is suspect, because every day there is something new about this particular field. So there may be some first, elementary rules you can use in order to isolate certain things immediately.
If you are reading an American book on a certain subject and you find only an English or American bibliography, then it is suspect. The author should have a larger...
"... overview?"
... yes, overview. But if it is a book on analytical philosophy and there is only an English bibliography, it is probably unnecessary to also have a Polish bibliography, even though there is a great school of logicians and analytical philosophers in Poland. So it all depends on the subject matter; on the state of the art. It should be absolutely urgent for us to invent rules for decimation; probably flexible rules, that change from domain to domain. Otherwise the future will be worse than the present, and we can reach a level at which over-information and censure will identify each other.
"OK?"
You see, you can cancel by abundance. You can cancel by subtraction, and you can cancel by increase or addition.
"By addition, yes. But you know, this business of knowing what is relevant... I mean - and this is something that I am quite concerned about - the quality of the stuff you get via the Net. You know, in Cyberspace, or whatever you want to call it; the Information Superhighway... It's my opinion - I don't know what you think - but certainly at the moment there are only a very limited number of people who have sufficient access, sufficient capabilities, to be able to put stuff out there. And that's a problem as well in itself. Because the people who choose to put information out there, those people choose the content of reading for the rest, do they not?"
Eco is silent for a moment.
Yes, I saw you had many questions in the papers you gave me the other day about all this new technology. I feel obliged to make a formal statement here: I am enormously interested in what is happening. I am trying to establish all possible services on Internet here at my institute, and to push young people to work in this direction. I think it is enormously important for the future, even for politics. I want to introduce into our curriculum for communication studies some special seminars in this area. Personally, I do not use those technologies. For a very simple reason. At my age, first, let us also say, at my level of 'visibility', my problem is to avoid the message.
"Yes..?"
Otherwise I will be destroyed by the number of messages. My problem is not to answer the telephone; my problem is to destroy the fax;the unrequested fax as soon as it arrives. Even if, or rather, when in the near future, I finally get an e-mail account, my problem will be how not to receive anything. Because if there is something that has to reach me at any cost, it will. There will be some way by which I will be informed.
There are few persons in the world that can reach me and tell me: look you should pay attention to this or that. Now, this is a personal problem of mine.
"Because of your position?"
Yes, even corresponding to, let's say, my ideology. Once, when I was younger, I said that after 50 a critic or a scholar mustn't be concerned any longer with avant-garde movements, but to write only about Elizabethan poets.
"...writing about the past?"
Yes, now why? Because novelty is coming so quickly these days that only a younger person is able to swallow and digest it, while an older person is slower in doing that. Why? An older person has a lot of experience, knows a lot of things and can very well work on more established problems than the young people who do not know enough to do that.
"Well, no, they don't have enough insight of course..."
This is a general rule; it's not by chance that my last scholarly book was on the search for a perfect language and not on the last trends in informatics and semantics. Because younger people are very fresh and able to see what happens in these domains. I personally have more experience and am better able to work out from classical material. In a way I think I have followed this principle. Obviously, I keep my eyes open; I am still very curious about all this. Really though, I don't try at any cost to try to understand and write about post-rap music. I am more able to make a good analysis of the Beatles, if not, of Johann Sebastian Bach. And that's what happens with all those new technologies. It is the same as what happens to a sportsman. You are a football player until the age of thirty. After 30 you become a coach.
"Yes, exactly. But the coach of course has the responsibility of keeping himself oriented about what is going on...?
Oh yes, keeping informed, but he is not obliged to try to kick the ball every morning.
"And also there's this idea of being a facilitator, rather than a user in a conventional way: one sees the possibilities that are available, and makes them available for the other people and just says OK...?
Yes, but it is younger people who must make the new analyses. They are more flexible and they are more independent of past experience. They do not risk repeating the same schemes; interpretative schemes. So why should I make analyses of programmes when they are able to do it better?
"Professor Eco, you are an academic; you're a scholar. You also write popular books. You are writing, very successfully, for two entirely different audiences. Do you experience any difficulty withstanding tabloidisation of your work, where the tabloid media and the TV conform to certain genres and norms which may be uncharacteristic of scholarly work?"
The problem is triple. There is not a single problem, there are three problems. First, a statement: I write academic stuff. I write in the newspapers - call it tabloid or popular journalism. I write my novels that by a mysterious chance have a mass success, but which I personally consider academic novels; and they are not easy novels. They are not love stories or things like that. So, there are three different problems.
Secondly, the problem can be considered from the point of view of the producer and the point of view of the receiver. As a producer I do not feel I have a split personality. All my life, the fact of studying something helped me to write more popular articles in order to explain the phenomena of the mass-media. The fact of being obliged to do this made me make weekly reflections - I would say irresponsible reflections - cooked-and-eaten or wash-and-wear reflections on what happened day by day helped me to collect experiences; to be attentive to what happened, and then to use the same material in a more organic and more profound, or more articulated and more critical way in my academic books.
So, for me, it was a sort of mutual help: the academic activity helped me to have instruments to understand the actualities; the continual attention to day by day events helped me to have material for reflection for my academic work. The story of the novel is another one, but equally I don't feel a split here either in my personality. I feel that what I do on the left side helps what I am doing on the right side.
Different is the point of view of reception. Here there is another problem: the fact that you are transformed into an icon. They are asking you something that you do not want to give...
"Transformed into an icon: you mean in the sense of becoming an oracle?"
Yes, an oracle. One is asked all the time, "What do you think about...?".
Now, why should I think anything about that? This happens not only to me. At this moment in time, Italian journalism is such that every scholar every day receives a phone call asking things like: "What do you think about the marriage of princess so-and-so?", or even incredibly stupid questions like "what do you think about the death of Greta Garbo?". Now why should you ask me about this? You answer either with a triviality like, "Well yes, she was a great actress, and I was very shocked by that," or, if you want to be very original: "oh, I am very happy that that lousy whore is dead - I hated her..." Obviously your answer cannot be anything other than some kind of formality. So it is not only a personal experience of mine, but of everybody. So you receive continuous pressure to do everything. That's why I told you that I don't receive messages, I don't read faxes and I don't answer the phone.
"So you don't follow electronic forums, or take part in online news group discussions or other activities of the Internet community?"
Not until now. But that is another problem, it is not due to the pressure at all. I will do it in the course of the next few months. But only in order to make a sort of survey, starting to put together some ideas. Maybe there can be something I might want to start with;I think there is an old book collector's network that I think can be useful because you can ask other people things like: "I found an old edition from 1643; I am not sure if there is a previous edition. "OK, I will use it.
Eco nods seriously.
I think that is one of the most exciting things about the Internet is that you can look upon it as a "community". I notice you mentioned in that paper you gave me from the San Marino conference that you were a bit unsure about whether we could really create this Global Village or community. Well now I do have some reservations -- but I certainly have had some positive experiences. If you find the right community like for instance the PEIRCE-L discussion list that I am a member of: I find this very good, because you have some kind of quality control there since people that "go there" only do so because they are specially interested -- Now just to develop this point a bit: you were talking about this business of being an icon etc. and Michael Crichton ...
Well, in the last year I have published three books. I was obliged to read tons and tons of dissertations and papers from my students. So of course I did not have time at this moment to play with Internet. In the next six months probably, when I have finished a lot of things, I will do it. OK. It's only a practical problem. Apropos the icon thing: the only way is to try and resist this iconisation - you answer no, no, no. But the problem has reached uncontrollable dimensions in the mass-media kingdom, because now it is not only your statements that makes a scoop, but it is your silence too.
"OK, I see, yes?"
I always quote one particular episode, because it is typical; but there are tens of thousands of such episodes. One day, as usual, finishing my class at 7 p.m., together with my assistants and students we went to a bar for a chat until 8 p.m. and then I went home, with some of them following me and chatting. We crossed Piazza Verdi in Bologna, in which we have the Opera House. What I didn't know was that this particular evening there was an important premiere. Well, I didn't know about that, of course I don't know everything.
He smiles.
Well, we crossed the square and I went home to do something, or to watch television, or to fuck - I don't know what. The day after, the headline in the newspaper was: "Umberto Eco did not attend that premiere! "Which is not a piece of news at all, because I usually do not attend these things. So, it was not a piece of news, but probably they had nothing better to talk about, so my absence became a...
"A sign?"
...yes, a sign. Well, at this point you cannot do anything but to try and disregard those kinds of accidents.
"To return to Michael Crichton - I think I wrote this in those questions in those papers I gave you - was talking of this idea of the mediasaurus, the big publishing houses. Do you think the media giants are at risk because people will be able to go directly to the sources of information? I mean, do you think that will reduce the pressure on the kind of icon figure, the expert, or do you think that whole thing is a myth, a total myth?"
<< Пред. стр. 5 (из 6) След. >>
Список литературы по разделу