The most important part, I felt, was getting the paper tape on screen, and the teletype interface, so that people can actually see computers before screens. The tactility, the feel of the machine as a text machine makes so much more sense that way.
The project was so big that my video editor started puking and the sound is out of sync in that bit. One day I'll fix the project up. :)
Ooh, this looks interesting! Always on the lookout for something apolitical to watch on the couch with my wife. I'd rather be watching right-wing conspiracy shit, but that drives her insane.
OK so I kept my promise and we watched it last weekend. I liked it! But, I was also pretty let down, and I want to expound some constructive criticism to help you give this thing the punch it needs.
Part of my disappointment may be, ironically, because my viewing comes hot off the heels of teasing you about being "a McLuhan fanboy," and reading the Postmodernism Is Cyberspace article which finally made stuff click for me, the nested theaters leading to further and further abstraction as the previous full experience becomes solely the content of the next medium... that shit BLEW, MY, MIND...
And I was expecting to find more of that in the Silicon & Charybdis series (brilliant title, btw) and I found... really almost none of it, I caught references to these ideas here and there, almost thought you were laying the foundation at points, and then never pulled the strings to tighten everything up into this thesis statement. I feel like I only even noticed these points *because* I was looking for them so hard. I never thought I would say it, but I finished it thinking "Clinton didn't talk about McLuhan enough!!" hahaha
Instead, as you mention, the whole series is a really deep dive on a very technical level, of the history of digital communication. Very cool... except there are a dime a dozen out there, too. *Your* content is unique, no one knows this McLuhan guy, and his philosophy is insightful, and only after reading that article above and your critiques on Haidt lately, have I really been able to even get the basic concept of his points. This is a GOLDEN opportunity for you to promote this philosophy.
So the big first tip, and everyone hates hearing this including me: You have too much content, and not enough punch on the point you actually want to make, and the point gets lost in the flood of content. You need to trim the fat, a LOT. (Even the Haidt article could probably have been about half as long.) Again, I hate saying it to you myself, because when I write, I HATE cutting content, especially when there's a lot to cut, and you spent so much time collecting and assembly it already. But the advantages are two fold: You save the audience some time, and you bring the focus back to the point you actually want to communicate, meaning "get this idea out from your head, and into your viewer's head." It's getting lost in what, to the passive content gorger's eye, appears to be yet another "history of the computer" documentary. Think of it like a comedian polishing the delivery of a joke: A punchline isn't funny without some setup. But too much setup and you've lost the audience. You need the most streamlined ratio of setup to punchline, only enough context necessary to make the punchline coherent and connect, and no more.
I may take the time to rewatch the whole series with a "point by point with timestamps" level of detail list of suggestions/cuts/emphasis in the future, but for now I'll just give you the gameplan I suggest:
1) Take the time to boil down McLuhan's concerns/philosophy into a single sentence, no more than 20-30 words if you can. You could follow this with 3-4 quick supporting bullet points, but I'm talking keep this TIGHT.
* Here's the problem.
** Here's how it happens.
** Here's why it matters.
** Here's how you've actually seen it happen and I'm not making this shit up.
Then print that and hang it on your wall as your target.
2) Using this target as your filter, either cut content, or start from scratch building *up* from nothing using the existing content. The filter you want to apply is, only keep bits that are building toward demonstrating either the headliner idea, or one of the supporting bullet points. If it doesn't serve the thesis *directly,* cut it.
3) You accidentally did some things in this fashion already. For one, DON'T change the title (lol) or add any further heavy-handed description to the tune of "this is about Marshall McLuhan," it actually sorta isn't and shouldn't be. Rather, it's about his idea, which you are promoting, and obviously you will credit him. But you don't have to bring him up by name every 10th paragraph. Instead, what you did best, was accidentally drop occasional Easter eggs across the whole series, where you emphasized "the change from X technology to Y technology meant more people could participate in it, because they didn't need to know Z about X technology to make Y work for them, and it was abstracted away." In fact, if you can *repeat* this like a mantra at each turn of development, it'll be perfectly natural for you to hit the audience between the eyes with McLuhan late into the series and point out "hey remember all those details that distanced you from the work it took to participate in communication we talked about?" and yank the string between all the Easter eggs and tighten them up in a "well you're trapped in a cyberspace completely untethered from reality now, so aren't you fucked?" conclusion. That would set this apart from other tech docs and get the audience to think. And if you can get to that point in an hour, you really have something here worth sharing.
Oh as an addendum, I also really enjoyed the prelude with Morse and Nightingale, despite it being a little awkward how choked up you got, ha. But they really were great stories, first I didn't know they had any crossover, but second it is in fact very poignant that the tragedies in both their lives hinged on the speed of communication. You glossed over them in the series, which given my major point being to cut content, probably was for the best, but... damn, I'd like to see that remade just to tell their stories again a little more professionally in a separate presentation. Also, HUGE kudos to you for apparently doing that in one take, IIRC, it looked like maybe you had some notes but otherwise winged that entire speech, in which case, great job, very impressive!
OK So a specific case, right? Is your narration at the beginning of the ep you linked in this article, especially your hilariously wistful yet deadpan delivery of "Back then, 'the interface' was a lot more friendly." Nailed it. Because without saying it directly, you've implied, there was a *personal, REAL, participation* in communicating the old way.
Hell, this is a trope. Somewhere out in the internet is a bunch of net-native self-aggrandizing nerds with a list of old media concerns: I hate sending letters, it's not like face to face. I hate telegraphs, it's not like getting a letter. Kids these days. I hate having a phone call, receiving a telegraph was so personal, the kids don't understand," etc. etc. But you have in your hands the potential to SERIOUSLY counter that, McLuhan's concern IS what underlies all of those sentiments, subconsciously, they could never put their finger on it, and he got the iron clad grip on the point.
3:25: "They want a perpetual dialogue going on among themselves as a response to world events" ....
This is great! I'll probably watch the others on YouTube.
i love this!
The most important part, I felt, was getting the paper tape on screen, and the teletype interface, so that people can actually see computers before screens. The tactility, the feel of the machine as a text machine makes so much more sense that way.
The project was so big that my video editor started puking and the sound is out of sync in that bit. One day I'll fix the project up. :)
I have an Adobe acct that I don't get enough usage out of if you want to use mine
Awesome! That's very gratifying—I should make more of these. :)
definitely 💯
Great!
Going to start experimenting with more video content and have more carefully produced audio content in the pipeline!
I can't wait to dive into this. I'm reading McLuhan's Understanding Media rn. It's mind blowing.
You'll love Clinton's stuff
Ooh, this looks interesting! Always on the lookout for something apolitical to watch on the couch with my wife. I'd rather be watching right-wing conspiracy shit, but that drives her insane.
OK so I kept my promise and we watched it last weekend. I liked it! But, I was also pretty let down, and I want to expound some constructive criticism to help you give this thing the punch it needs.
Part of my disappointment may be, ironically, because my viewing comes hot off the heels of teasing you about being "a McLuhan fanboy," and reading the Postmodernism Is Cyberspace article which finally made stuff click for me, the nested theaters leading to further and further abstraction as the previous full experience becomes solely the content of the next medium... that shit BLEW, MY, MIND...
https://substack.com/home/post/p-146575750?r=2xi9a
And I was expecting to find more of that in the Silicon & Charybdis series (brilliant title, btw) and I found... really almost none of it, I caught references to these ideas here and there, almost thought you were laying the foundation at points, and then never pulled the strings to tighten everything up into this thesis statement. I feel like I only even noticed these points *because* I was looking for them so hard. I never thought I would say it, but I finished it thinking "Clinton didn't talk about McLuhan enough!!" hahaha
Instead, as you mention, the whole series is a really deep dive on a very technical level, of the history of digital communication. Very cool... except there are a dime a dozen out there, too. *Your* content is unique, no one knows this McLuhan guy, and his philosophy is insightful, and only after reading that article above and your critiques on Haidt lately, have I really been able to even get the basic concept of his points. This is a GOLDEN opportunity for you to promote this philosophy.
So the big first tip, and everyone hates hearing this including me: You have too much content, and not enough punch on the point you actually want to make, and the point gets lost in the flood of content. You need to trim the fat, a LOT. (Even the Haidt article could probably have been about half as long.) Again, I hate saying it to you myself, because when I write, I HATE cutting content, especially when there's a lot to cut, and you spent so much time collecting and assembly it already. But the advantages are two fold: You save the audience some time, and you bring the focus back to the point you actually want to communicate, meaning "get this idea out from your head, and into your viewer's head." It's getting lost in what, to the passive content gorger's eye, appears to be yet another "history of the computer" documentary. Think of it like a comedian polishing the delivery of a joke: A punchline isn't funny without some setup. But too much setup and you've lost the audience. You need the most streamlined ratio of setup to punchline, only enough context necessary to make the punchline coherent and connect, and no more.
I may take the time to rewatch the whole series with a "point by point with timestamps" level of detail list of suggestions/cuts/emphasis in the future, but for now I'll just give you the gameplan I suggest:
1) Take the time to boil down McLuhan's concerns/philosophy into a single sentence, no more than 20-30 words if you can. You could follow this with 3-4 quick supporting bullet points, but I'm talking keep this TIGHT.
* Here's the problem.
** Here's how it happens.
** Here's why it matters.
** Here's how you've actually seen it happen and I'm not making this shit up.
Then print that and hang it on your wall as your target.
2) Using this target as your filter, either cut content, or start from scratch building *up* from nothing using the existing content. The filter you want to apply is, only keep bits that are building toward demonstrating either the headliner idea, or one of the supporting bullet points. If it doesn't serve the thesis *directly,* cut it.
3) You accidentally did some things in this fashion already. For one, DON'T change the title (lol) or add any further heavy-handed description to the tune of "this is about Marshall McLuhan," it actually sorta isn't and shouldn't be. Rather, it's about his idea, which you are promoting, and obviously you will credit him. But you don't have to bring him up by name every 10th paragraph. Instead, what you did best, was accidentally drop occasional Easter eggs across the whole series, where you emphasized "the change from X technology to Y technology meant more people could participate in it, because they didn't need to know Z about X technology to make Y work for them, and it was abstracted away." In fact, if you can *repeat* this like a mantra at each turn of development, it'll be perfectly natural for you to hit the audience between the eyes with McLuhan late into the series and point out "hey remember all those details that distanced you from the work it took to participate in communication we talked about?" and yank the string between all the Easter eggs and tighten them up in a "well you're trapped in a cyberspace completely untethered from reality now, so aren't you fucked?" conclusion. That would set this apart from other tech docs and get the audience to think. And if you can get to that point in an hour, you really have something here worth sharing.
Oh as an addendum, I also really enjoyed the prelude with Morse and Nightingale, despite it being a little awkward how choked up you got, ha. But they really were great stories, first I didn't know they had any crossover, but second it is in fact very poignant that the tragedies in both their lives hinged on the speed of communication. You glossed over them in the series, which given my major point being to cut content, probably was for the best, but... damn, I'd like to see that remade just to tell their stories again a little more professionally in a separate presentation. Also, HUGE kudos to you for apparently doing that in one take, IIRC, it looked like maybe you had some notes but otherwise winged that entire speech, in which case, great job, very impressive!
OK So a specific case, right? Is your narration at the beginning of the ep you linked in this article, especially your hilariously wistful yet deadpan delivery of "Back then, 'the interface' was a lot more friendly." Nailed it. Because without saying it directly, you've implied, there was a *personal, REAL, participation* in communicating the old way.
Hell, this is a trope. Somewhere out in the internet is a bunch of net-native self-aggrandizing nerds with a list of old media concerns: I hate sending letters, it's not like face to face. I hate telegraphs, it's not like getting a letter. Kids these days. I hate having a phone call, receiving a telegraph was so personal, the kids don't understand," etc. etc. But you have in your hands the potential to SERIOUSLY counter that, McLuhan's concern IS what underlies all of those sentiments, subconsciously, they could never put their finger on it, and he got the iron clad grip on the point.
Am I right?
LOL. That stuff gets old.