I don’t think you see it on a massive scale at this time, but I think the historical author… the historical deliverer… is going to be challenged in times to come (if not already). We are trained, more or less, in a traditional style, centered mostly around print media. There is a certain way that we set-up the “delivery” of information in print. Obviously, we can only hope that what we write does effectively “interact” with the reader. The interaction is dependent on two things… how good our delivery is, and how the reader digests that information… and stirs that delivered history in his/her own imagination. The problem is, I think, that the interaction is limited… one-way the part of the author, and one-way on the part of the reader. How is it possible to, as the author, remain behind the scenes, not necessarily interacting one-on-one with the reader, but still interacting with the reader/consumer? If we do not do this, are we limited in our ability to reach a larger audience and make a greater amount of people interested in history? I believe that we fail as historians if we cannot engage the larger audience.In fact, in some ways, we have been failing for a long time, as so many people are left with the concept that history is little more than learning dates and names of people… and blah, blah, blah.
So, what is our future? In the expanding social Web, I think we see where we have to go. There are buzzwords like interactive and dynamic that are setting the course for us. What’s it going to take for us, not only to retain the audience that we already have, but also gain a larger audience that is less compelled by the written word in print media, and more electrified by the dynamic word in electronic media such as on the Web? The effectiveness of historians in the future, I believe, is in our ability to become historical curators… to some degree, display builders. We need to become more aware of how our content interacts with the reader… and not simply in the architecture of the written word.
Michael Aubrecht
September 1, 2010
This is an excellent post Robert. As a writer who also has a degree in Visual Communications, I have always been very aware of emerging medias and their impact on our ability a historians to disseminate information. I have also experienced something new in regards to this topic following the release of our documentary on The Angel of Marye’s Heights. Unlike with my books and web work, there is an immediate response and interaction that takes place at a film screening. Not only do you get to witness the response of your work from the surrounding audience, but following the movie and subsequent talk, people will enthusiastically come up with questions and comments as the film is still fresh in their minds and either reminded them of something, or ignited an emotional response. They often reference a specific scene from the film when they pre-empt their comment I always get questions at my talks, but never with the fervor I am now. Moving pictures resonate with people in a manner that print cannot. It is tremendously terrifying at first and then infinitely satisfying and I have learned so much in the last 18 months. Perhaps that is why I will likely finish producing my second documentary long before I finish my seventh book.
Robert Moore
September 2, 2010
Hi Mike,
Interesting that you bring film into the discussion, as that may be coming as a discussion point in a later post.
I see film as similar to the book in a few ways, and then not at all in a few others. For example, similar as in… once you are done making the final product, your ability to interact through the product (directly) remains in aftermath discussion & interaction alone. You can no longer interact directly through the product and you can’t go back and tinker with the interaction process of the product… that path, or I should say, those paths that you have built into the product, are now static. To some degree, the “author” is dead. The end-product must be evaluated based on its ability to “work” in the absence of the author/director/producer, because the author/director/producer is not always present to field questions and engage in post-op discussion… nor are there “hyperlinks” between different works that may further enhance the existing product or serve as add-on features.
On the other hand, film, of course, has a feature that books cannot tap into…. active sensory… well, technically, the readers’ imaginations are active sensory, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Essentially, the big screen has the power of audio and visual immersion (I have, however, also experienced olfactory immersion… but not in anything historical… and don’t think I really want to go there when considering warfare-related historical pieces) that the book does not have… and neither does the Web… at this time. We can’t quite seem to get that audio-visual immersion because of the limitations of the screen and the audio systems tied into the screen, but I’m a firm believer that virtual reality visual devices (and not necessarily the big bulky type) will address this at a later point.
Then…. the Web allows a form of interaction and assessment ability (assessing your ability to interact within the product through non-social interactive features of a site) that neither the book or film allow. In fact, there is a time suspension in play, whereby the creator, as long as he/she is “around in this life”, has the ability to interact in suspended time. He/she doesn’t always have to be present on the Web, but revisits the Web in spatial interim to keep the site organically responsive to user interaction. More importantly, it doesn’t have to be social interaction… in the form of social interaction that we “know” at present. In fact, it might be better not to have the social interaction that might interrupt any immersive interactions the creator has inserted into the site.
Essentially, I am talking about personal interaction (though not social) through the product and not social interaction in the wake of the product.