Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/c/carbonat/www/words/textpattern/lib/txplib_db.php on line 14
carbonated ink : one man's struggle against boredom

more on paper

[]    things of paper : 22. April 2004, 11:20   

I began the day reading one of my favourite comfort books—Munken Paper Guide. Don’t know why, but I think it has something to do with words. In some way it always have. Words and paper, they belong together. You can separate them, but somehow they lose their meaning that way. Same thing for photos and images, they also belong on paper.

People have said that putting them on the Internet is much easier and I agree. Anyone can do that. But is it better? No, I don’t think so. The words can never look so beautiful on the screen as they do printed on a paper sheet. One can try, but for me it’s easy to choose if a text I’ve written should be on a sheet of Munken Print Extra 20 set in Pontifex or on the Web in Georgia—Georgia the typeface, not the city or state.

It’s not a matter of price, it more of a ethical question of what’s right. The Web might have pop-ups, easier to have it in colour, animation, interactivity and sound, but paper has a soul. The machine doesn’t.

So what I wanna know is, is there good things on paper? Magazines, fanzines (yes please!) or just amusing pamphlets. Anything will do. Except books, I have no trouble finding those beasts.



Comments

  1. The physical texture/structure of paper, yes that’s a reason why I prefer paper. That hadn’t struck me before.

    I have no recommendations at the moment, though. Sorry.
    — Johan A    (@ 22. April 2004, 12:10)
  2. The reason words doesn’t look as good as on paper on the Internet (screen) is that people always trying to make the screen-words looks as like they were printed on paper. That’s what’s wrong! They don’t use the media. A screen isn’t a piece of paper.
    — Tommy    (@ 22. April 2004, 13:07)
  3. Tommy: of course it isn’t, but I prefer words to be portable. That’s a very big feature.

    (On topic: when is your fanzine finished? Honestly. I want to know.)
    — Nicklas    (@ 22. April 2004, 15:03)
  4. Internet-words can be portable in handheld computers! ... And now you think “Hell no, I won’t read anything on that shitty little screen!” but then you’re still thinking about paper-words. Expand your minds.

    (Fanzine? Fuck you, douche.)
    — Tommy    (@ 22. April 2004, 21:19)
  5. No. You got that wrong. I’ve only got someting against PDAs because I don’t have one. And remember you shitty little Palm Pilot that you couldn’t use because the pen-touchplate coordination was fucked up?
    — Nicklas    (@ 22. April 2004, 22:04)
  6. I got that PDA working again. I just had to wait a couple of month until the battery went out. But – I’m ashamed to admit – after having used it for some days, last week I threw it away and got myself an ordinary calender. In paper…
    — Tommy    (@ 23. April 2004, 08:29)
  7. So you claim there’s nothing wrong with PDA and electric text, but it’s you?
    — Nicklas    (@ 23. April 2004, 16:10)
  8. NO, the problem with my Palm was only technical. It was a old handheld. It was its time… Well… I’m not saying that Internet/PDA/digital text is better that paper text (it’s not) but I’m saying that we have had it all wrong. Digital text is not paper text on a screen. It’s dynamic text.

    Whatever…

    STFU.
    — Tommy    (@ 23. April 2004, 20:56)