I recently visited the German Literature Archive in Marbach, just outside Stuttgart. The modern concrete structure of the archive sits beside an older museum dedicated to Friedrich Schiller, the revered poet born in Marbach in 1759. Across the way is the Museum of Modern German Literature, a small architectural gem built a few years ago by David Chipperfield that somehow manages to be both monumental and understated. The complex sits atop the Schillerhöhe, a promontory overlooking a landscape where traces of the bucolic panorama that must have inspired the young poet vie with industrial smokestacks and the interweaving patterns of high voltage powerlines. I was there at the invitation of Ulrich Raulff, the archives director. Thus I was allowed to venture beyond the reading rooms and spend some hours in the archives vault. Ive never considered myself an archive rat, that particular species of historian whose nose twitches in hungry anticipation at the first whiff of moldering paper. Yet it was impossible to resist the historians romance with the primary document down there, in that labyrinth which holds so much of the patrimony of modern German culture, in all its splendors and its abject depths. Martin Heideggers lecture notes, neatly arranged by the philosopher himself, overwritten with various colors of ink to signal ongoing revisions; the manuscript of The Metamorphosis written in Kafkas crabbed hand; rows of papers from Arthur Schnitzler, the philosopher Gadamer, the historian Koselleck, and hundreds of other authors; David Friedrich Strausss notes from Hegels lectures, bursting with ideas on a Friday and then empty on Monday except for a cross etched by Strausss quill pen to mark the sudden death of Hegel over the weekend. And on every shelf, diaries and letters, traces of selves in their most intimate interior monologue and most varied dialogues with others. This is an archive dedicated not to the decisions of governments or the procedures of bureaucrats, but to creative lives at the intersection of private thought and public speech.
Such an archive forcefully reminds me of the great gap that separates us from the practices of reflection and communication that prevailed even a couple of decades ago. What will the future archive documenting our present look like? What will it contain? Of course, the telephone, one of the modern worlds signature technologies, has been an enemy of the archive from the first moment someone decided to call rather than write. Yet the vast bulk of correspondence sitting in this archive suggests that the telephone in itself did not displace the letter. Throughout most of the twentieth century, and contrary to that marketing slogan that turned us into a culture of long-distance callers, when people wanted to "reach out and touch someone," they did so by passing a letter from one hand to another. Ironically, it may be that the production of digital words in the age of the personal computer is the greatest enemy of the literary archive. When I first started using email, I had a surge of optimism that the age of letter writing may be returning. That quickly disappeared. My attempts to organize my inbox collapsed in an indiscriminate deluge of spam, group mailings, business, and personal correspondence. Then, I found even personal exchanges with my friends devolving into the hieroglyphic form of the office memo. My hope vanished the first time my server performed an automatic housekeeping operation and made a clean sweep of all my older messages, spam and love letters alike. What of the record of the creative process? My thought turns to Kafkas manuscript, a physical object that visibly communicates the euphoria of creativity but also the agonizing search for the right word or phrase. What traces of the writing process will survive from our own time? Will families of deceased authors donate hard drives to the archive in the hope that some future generation of technologists will be able to decipher the genesis of masterworks from ghostlike etchings on silicone micro-chips? Probably not. The word processor produces neither a manuscript nor a palimpsest, just a series of present versions. Perhaps we are facing an irony of almost cosmic proportions. Never has a period of human history produced as many words as our own. Never has it been easier to communicate, never easier to generate and disseminate words. Yet it may well be that future generations of scholars will find that the rich record of intimate life, private thought, and the processes of our creative work trails off right around the time the delete button was invented.
June 1, 2009Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.
Comments Post a Comment »
Warren,
Among the things my illustrious wife, and professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures, loves about archives is the process of discovering the unexpected, looking into the cracks of the weighty canon where, she tells me, one can find some of the richer seams of thought and idea. Now, while I wouldn't for a second disagree that the digital era is beginning with a kind of built-in amnesia, I would draw attention to the science of digital forensics. The nature of the digital beast is many-headed and the appendices in its digestive tract are manifold. My point is merely optimistic. The trapping of ghostly after-images of information in the computer systems of the world wasn't thought through so much as it was a 'natural' outcome of the beast's personality and apetite. My suspicion is that the beast itself will evolve under the pressure of our collective use, in some dividual way, to preserve a history that might even set itself apart from the histories inscribed by each of the individual authors who came before it.
Your friend,
Neil
Posted by Neil Garrioch on Mon 1 Jun 2009