Lyanna Ortiz
Professor Ann Ilan Alter
Expository Writing 101
October 10th, 2017
Openness and Literature
“Open” and “closed” systems have been argued for and against in almost every discussion of literary art and technology, as well as most other forms of art. An open network involves the unrestricted trading of concepts and technologies between corporations and individuals. Closed networks contain establishments privatizing and secluding their ideas from the input and contributions of all other groups. Jonathan Lethem defends the appropriating of ideas in literature to enhance culture in his article, “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism.” Tim Wu argues the benefits of openness over closedness within technology and the internet in society in his article, “Father and Son.” Lethem and Wu are ultimately arguing for ideas to be accessible for everyone and owned by none, but also acknowledge that closedness has its perks too. The completely free sharing of ideas and models amongst individuals and establishments will prove more valuable to the common culture of all groups of people around the world.
Appropriation allows concepts to be called into question and rethought to eventually propose another idea about the world and what is contained within it. Encouragement can stem from almost anywhere and it is often a matter of being at the “right place at the right time.” The start of the partnership that has lead to the level of grandeur that Apple Inc. was inspired by the taxes and fees placed on long-distance calls in the early 1970s. Tim Wu writes, “it would be their first taste of the eureka moment that would-be inventors have always lived for” (Wu 538). Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs used previous technology and societal circumstances to create “blue boxes” that were able to make free long-distance calls, which sparked a new and exciting obsession within all amateur creators: worldwide communication. Jonathan Lethem also mentions the many sources that Bob Dylan took insight from to create his own music; Dylan shamelessly recognized that his ideas came from, “ not only vintage Hollywood films but from Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Junichi Saga’s Confessions of a Yakuza” (Lethem, 212). Although Dylan’s music was not completely original, his lack of ingenuity does not discredit his achievements and reputation. Artists and tinkerers of the past have inspired future generations to try to “make the familiar strange” (Lethem, 216). Lethem’s definition for appropriation allows for ideas of literature to be spread, reworked, and reinterpreted into a culture that is simultaneously being redesigned. Without the failures and successes of the past, innovators of the present would have nothing to reference or question when trying to create something fresh. Technology is the perfect example of how our culture is constantly changing, because new developments and products emerge every year. Had the technological network of the past been closed, Lethem would have probably never have been able to write, “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism” as easily and with as much convenience as he did. Imagine the work Lethem would have had to have done in a library in order to acquire all the references he used to write his article. Literature has been made readable and understandable for people of all cultural and geographical backgrounds through the development of technology and worldwide communication. Lethem is arguing for the same boundless capacity for information in literature that is currently contained within the world wide web.
Is corporate control a necessity? The power large corporations and establishments have over innovators and their work has lead to limitations in creativity, but also protection and stability economically and socially. Copyright controls the sources from which writers can draw inspiration and reference. Lethem writes, “Copyright is a denial of the essential gift aspect of the creative act. Arguments in favor of are as un-American as those for the repeal of the estate tax” (Lethem 224). Copyright and government control on the management of literature determines what can be read, from who, and from where. Take banned books for example. When novels are banned because of their content and possible message to society, culture is hidden from ideas that could be revealing crucial information to form opinions about political, social, or cultural issues. Wu writes, “Consumers on the whole seen content to bear a little totalitarianism for convenience and are happy to have Apple sort out the wheat from the chaff” (Wu, 551). Wu is clearly stating that corporate control is up to the consumer. Or is corporate regulation dictating what consumers are content with? Consumers ultimately decide whether or not to do the work themselves or allow someone else to do it for them, and in today’s society, luxury and ease are in high demand. It can also be argued that the products presented to the public and their abilities determine which commodities are favorable and which are not. Apple products are straightforward and have a sleek, simple design which goes along with the minimalist trend that is presently circulating all social media outlets; Apple Inc.’s ability to appeal to the masses has allowed for its dominance within the technological market and what consumers are allowed to do with its products. Wu indirectly addresses this same point when he discusses the importance of openness when it comes to the survival of open-based corporations like Google. Wu writes, “. . .Google lives or dies based on the data it can access, and that its strategies are engineered to preserve the openness of the original Web. In a Web of closed, siloed information, the search engine would be just a mere tool, not the dominant paradigm that it is today” (Wu 543). The full potential and success of a company is inhibited by restrictions imposed on the thoughts artists by the government and large corporations.
Closed networks prevent the renovation of old concepts and technology by detaching ideas from the public. It is evident, through companies like Apple Inc. and The Walt Disney Company that corporations can benefit largely from secluding ideas for their own personal gain. It is safe to state that Lethem and Wu support an anti-establishment mentality in regards to innovation and creation. Lethem despises the monopolization of Disney-related images by The Walt Disney Company and he writes, “Disney’s protectorate of lobbyists has policed the resulting cache of cultural materials as vigilantly as if it were Fort Knox” (Lethem 220). Monopolization has broken multiple links in the chain of recycling and reworking ideas. Wu simply states a fact: “Innovation begat industry, and industry begat consolidation” (Wu 538). It is undeniable that Apple Inc. has gained much success and exclusivity by abandoning its original open ideals for those that would solidify its sole profit on its own products and ideas. However, that fact must not overshadow the progress that Google Inc. has consummated by maintaining an open system. The openness and adaptability of Google and its products has increased its popularity amongst amateur inventors and dabblers of technology. Although Google Inc. has had success thus far sticking to its morals of exposure, the company is facing the same tough choice that once plagued Apple Inc.: Would a closed network be more beneficial for the future of the company? Apple Inc. and Google Inc. are incredible examples of the potential in both an open system and a closed one.
Knowledge is not created, but discovered and revealed through the combination, cultivation, and separation of the concepts presented by different people from different walks of life. Wozniak intended for Apple to be openly understood and explored; he even went as far as to suggest the sharing of blueprints of Apple products. Wozniak once said, “Everything we knew, you knew” (Wu, 539). Although an open network offers more opportunity and potential for a new corporation, closed systems present more security and stability for companies that are gaining popularity. Apple Inc. was created on the basis of nonconformity, but those roots are difficult to identify, as Apple Inc. has become a major corporation following popular demand and sheltering itself from other connections. The openness Apple Inc. was what initially allowed for its expansion and the culmination of new products; however, its originality, which Lethem would argue never truly existed, increased the need for safeguard of its ideas.. Originality is a term Lethem cannot fully back, because ideas are constantly borrowed and recycled. He accepts the fact that ‘all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources . . .” (Lethem, 225) and are crucial to the development of new concepts. It is impossible pinpoint exactly where our seemingly genius ideas stem from, but it is indisputable to assume that our encounters and experiences throughout everyday life don’t influence the way we process and analyze information.
As of today, openness and closedness are somewhat equally acclaimed amongst customers. Ultimately, the consumer’s taste and wish will determine whether closed systems or open systems will prevail. An open system on paper sounds like an ideal way of generating creativity and originality, but at the expense of an artist’s recognition. However, closedness protects a company’s ideas and profits from piracy. Would the world be better off with little to no restriction or would the civilization we’ve strived to build over hundreds of years fall apart in an instant? There is no doubt that Lethem and Wu agree that artists and tinkers should be acknowledge for the work they have created, but they’re hoping that those creators don’t hide their work from criticism and improvement, because then all ideas would remain static and be forgotten.