Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “This Was the First Word Processor Ever Used By a Novelist. It Weighed 200 Pounds and Had to Be Brought in Though the Window.” Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
The author of this piece, Matthew Kirschenbaum, is the author of an upcoming work entitled Track Changes for the Harvard University Press, a book that chronicles much of the history of the word processor. Kirschenbaum also teaches English at the University of Maryland and on occasion Skypes with first year writing seminars. As an author and historian, Kirschenbaum has done extensive research on the word processor and has interviewed dozens of authors, programmers, and scholars of writing and the pedagogical nature of technology. The article is primarily focused with revealing to the reader who the first individual was to use a word processor in writing a novel, citing Len Deighton as the author, with his assistant, Ms. Ellenor Handley as the one to do most of the actual typing. Though the machine they used to create his WWII era novel Bomber (written in the late 60s and published in 1970) looked nothing like the word processors used today, IBM’s Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter (MTST) was able to interpret keystrokes and store them on a magnetic tape and then print the document at 150 words per minute at the users request. Bomber benefited significantly from this technology due to its complex nature and Deighton’s non-linear writing style. Written for Slate Magazine’s website, Kirschenbaum’s audience is a relatively broad, but technologically literate community with readers similar to that of Wired or New York Magazine.
The slant present then, is one of someone who is well versed in these matters writing for an audience who is likewise aware of certain trends in that area. Kirschenbaum himself has also stated that the title of first-author-to-publish-using-a-word-processor can vary dramatically depending on a wide array of criteria. The critical weakness of the article is this grey area of categorization. How do you define word processor? Who actually wrote it, the author, or the typist? What if there was some unknown publisher in a less transparent nation that did it first? However in coming down on one book, Deighton’s Bomber is as good as any. As is apparent from his Kirschenbaum has done the best anyone ma do in this pursuit, including interviewing both Deighton and Handley for the piece. The article supports our project in that it points to the importance of the word processor. That someone would care enough to write a book researching the history of the technology shows its importance, in addition, though discovering Deighton’s use of MTST is not as relevant as George R.R. Martin revealing his use of WordStar, the article remains interesting, after all, everyone uses word processors now. As for its use within the body of this paper, the article serves as a good starting point for the origin of the word processor gaining importance and momentum as big-name authors began to use it.
Pea, Roy D. “Cognitive Technologies for Writing.” Review of Research in Education 14 (1987): 277-326. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1167314?ref=no-x-route:a1d99e99512963867a6ea141c96cfd64>.
Roy Pea is one of the foremost scholars in implementing technology in education, he received his D.Phil. (PhD) in developmental psychology form Oxford University in 1978, and is currently a professor of Learning Sciences at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. Learning and teaching through technology is what he does, and he does it well. In what begins with an excellent quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein, “It is only the attempt to write down your ideas that enables them to develop,” his piece (written in conjunction with New York University Laboratory for Advanced Research in Educational Technology) focuses on how new writing technologies, specifically the word processor, benefit teaching and learning alike. Pea points out at the time of publication (1987) writing technologies did not necessarily change what people wrote, only how they wrote it. He then proposes, after outlining historical precedents, that with the wild growth of computing could come an increase in “Cognitive writing technologies,” technologies that would help put computing to the best use. Pea is clearly writing for a well read audience, but one that is still learning about this area, and due to its publication in the American Educational Research Association Review, it is safe to assume that he is also writing for his peers. At the time, writing technologies were relatively new for everyone, and Pea keeps the diction from becoming too erudite. As long as the reader knows what “cognitive” means, they will be able to get by.
The slant here comes from the fact that Pea is himself an educator writing for educators. He claims early on that “[word processors] neither offer qualitative advances over previous tools in helping mature writers express or refine their thoughts, nor help novices develop better writing skills,” a point that even then could be argued in a variety of ways. That being said, the whole purpose of the essay is to excite those possibilities and prompt educators and programmers alike to begin changing that statement. Acceptance of the current state of affairs coupled with the drive to change them is a great strength of this piece, the weakness being the fact that it was written over 25 years ago. It’s age does not, however, discredit it it entirely. This piece will be of great use in showcasing how word processing technology has changed, and how White Space will continue to refine it. In a sense, this source is useful as both a support and a counter to our current thesis and in that way solidifies our argument even more.