I gave a talk for local librarians on Wednesday, which ended up being about the idea that the age of print was but a short blip in the history of human culture, the Gutenberg Parenthesis, as Tom Pettitt and others have called it (see this PDF for Pettitt’s paper on the topic at MIT5), and that we’re now in the post-parenthetical period. I love the Gutenberg Parenthesis concept – it seems such a great way of explaining the changes we’re going through. But the librarians did point out some problems – for instance, why did copyright appear so late in the age of print if it’s one of the defining features of the Gutenberg Parenthesis? Ibsen didn’t actually own copyright to his own works at the end of the nineteenth century – his publisher did, though. And did I realise that early printers used to travel around from village to village and set up their portable printers and publish small runs of whatever people wanted? Well, no, I hadn’t. Well, the librarian continued, the “authority” and mass-media quality of print wasn’t an issue until Richelieu decided that the state needed more information about its citizens and suddenly required all printed material to be sent to the government – and this idea that print should be controlled by the government quickly spread to other countries. Isn’t that a great example, by the way, of how technology and culture/society are interdependent?

I think these objections merely show that the transitional periods are extremely long, and that norms and expectations based on a previous technology carry over far past the extinction of that technology. That’s why copyright extends and even increases in today’s world, despite its being largely unsuitable for today’s technology and communication.

Having thought about this all Wednesday, Thursday’s lecture to my web design students ended up circling around the same issues – and all the links and so on are summarised in the class blog [Update Sept ’09 – Oops – a teaching assistent deleted THE WHOLE BLOG for that class so that link won’t work and all my notes are lost. GRRR!]


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

9 thoughts on “heading out of the gutenberg parenthesis

  1. Gro

    I have been teaching renaissance as an epoque just recently, at the brand new subject
    “history and philsophy” at katedralskolen. And this short epoque (1400 -1600)
    is filled with extraordinary discoveries and inventions, done by individuals,
    which we still benefit from. I love the renaissance belief in mankind as
    nearly half-goods, capabale of almost everything! Before Gutenberg came along,
    reading was so exchausting that they recommended it as physical training,
    instead of run or swim you simply read. They did’nt have space between
    words, and they merely wrote what they heard, so no books were similar.

  2. Mark Bernstein

    I’m not sure I follow your point about Ibsen here. Though one may have copyrights, surely they are not inalienable rights: that would make literary contracts immoral. So, if Ibsen sold his copyrights to a publisher, that seems entirely conventional.

  3. whitney trettien

    Hi Jill, I’ve been following your blog on and off, and have always found something to provoke thought. Although I used to love the Gutenberg parentheses idea, too, I don’t find it so compelling anymore — partly because, as the librarians rightly pointed out, print became what it is through social and very human processes (not because of something inherent in the technology), but more so because it encourages thinking in terms of segmented media epochs, with print being something wholly separate from anything else. I think this goes beyond the duration of transitional periods. “The Book” is a strange and versatile form, with many more continuities to new media than we realize; I worry that ideas like the “Gutenberg parentheses” will only further encourage us to separate the “new” from the “old,” always defining one against the other and, in the process, finding only what we seek or expect.

    (Not to mention: letterpress printing is not obsolete!)

  4. William Patrick Wend

    Jill, thanks for the link to the Pettitt article. I’ve been trying to explain this “blip” (great word) in my own work and I am sure it will be helpful for me.

  5. Hypertext 3.0 | William Patrick Wend

    […] For my own work, the chapter of how hypertext changes education is probably the most important. My own views differ a bit from Landow, whose conclusions I think are still too rooted in print culture aesthetics and theory. Nevertheless, I understand that in order to communicate with the humanities that might be a required constraint. One part of Landow’s argument I strongly agree with is that any changes that come in this period, recently coined excellently via Jill Walker-Rettberg by Tom Pettitt and others as the Gutenberg Parenthesis (more on this in the future), will take a long time. […]

  6. […] (And some of her current posts develop further what we’ve been discussing in class: heading out of the gutenberg parentheses, for instance, is worth a read – not only for class but to see how scholars blogs and how they connect and interact on blogs.) […]

  7. Gisele H.

    The age of print was a short blip in the history of human culture, the Gutenberg Parenthesis> http://jilltxt.net/?p=2317

  8. Gisele

    Great insights! Thanks!

  9. […] And for a little more, you could see my presentation discussing the concept with librarians, which emphasises the meaning of silent reading and such – and the post includes some interesting objections from the librarians. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.