Manovich and Bolter: Looking Back to See the Future

We have been doing a lot of talking about the inevitable evolution of the dissemination of information. We have voiced our concerns about "the machine" and we have cried out against the extinction of our beloved books. I have been one of the terrified people who does not know enough about technology to trust it, and who is stubbornly romantic when it comes to how I read. This week, my perspective is beginning to shift.
I decided to take a leap of faith in terms of digital reading, and chose not to print the Bolter article, and instead read it on my computer. (part of this was the desire to try it and part of it stems from the outlandish amount of money I am throwing into printing every article I have to read for classes)My experience with Bolter was in part, frustrating, but less so than I expected. My main concern was with the inability to write in the margins. I solved this by cutting and pasting passages from the reading and using a word document to think them out. I still like the hand-written margin notes, but the process I used was not entirely torturous.
The biggest theme I got from both Manovich and Bolter was the need to look at where we have come from in order to understand where we are going. I think we tend to look at the computer as an anomalous thing that has no connection to written text. I liked how Bolter used the word processor as a means of talking about text. Bear with me on this quote. I know it is long, but I think it is important in its entirety.
"A conventional word processor does not treat the text as a network of verbal ideas. It does not contain a map of the ways in which the text may be read; it does not record or act on the semantic structure of the text. Other forms of electronic writing do all these things, making the text from the writer's point of view a network of verbal elements and from the reader's point of view a texture of possible readings. They permit the reader to share in the dynamic process of writing and so to alter the voice of the text."
If I am reading this right, Bolter is saying that traditional forms of writing do not allow for varied information that is tailored to the reader. I am picturing a website here, with a sidebar that allows a reader to use only the information they need instead of having to read something in its entirety. I would say this lends itself to a more efficient mode of reading, but I am still hesitant to apply this idea to all types of writing. I think Bolter would agree. He refers to the linear structure of novels and argues that, "In fact, linear forms such as the novel and the essay may or may not flourish in an era of digital media." If this is true, there may be a space for people on both sides of the physical text issue.
I don't think Bolter is advocating for the end of the written text. I think he is looking back at where the written word originated and using the evolution as a means of illustrating where it might go. Who knows; with the advent of technology like Kindle and the i pad, the move to a digital reading and writing space may not be so painful.
I felt like Manovich was taking the same route as Bolter. He says, "every stage i the history of computer media offers its own aesthetic opportunities, as well as its own vision of the future: in short, its own 'research paradigm'" I think what Manovich is gearing at here is that we have to look at the language and conventions of different types of media along their trajectory to understand what contributions they have made, are making, and will make. There is a theme of redefinition and evolution in the introduction, and I assume that will be a central theme in the book. He seems to be looking at the ways in which technology builds on and improves our ability to see the world.
I am still not ready to give up my books yet, but the theories posed by Manovich and Bolter, and the Kindle demo I linked is making me think it could be a positive experience.