Three days ago, I returned to the UK. I took a nap, did a bit of unpacking, and set up my laptop. I hadn't been on the thing two seconds before my computer was attacked by malware.
A friend of mine was able to fix it remotely, and in the meantime I was able to use my netbook, but nevertheless the situation was frustrating. The malware had disguised itself was WindowsDisk, a defragmentation software. A similar thing had happened last year, when a Trojan attacked my computer disguised as anti-virus software. Hackers are getting tricky, and in both instances I freaked about the files stored on my harddrive. This most recent incident, I had less to worry about, but I did quickly e-mail myself a short story I had been working on and hadn't got a chance to back up on an external harddrive. But this got me thinking.
Are writers worse off if they use the computer?
Back in the day--and I mean way back--before iPads and laptops and computers so thin not even a CD will fit inside it, when you wanted to write something, you got out a piece of paper and a pen and you wrote it by hand. Many still do, and the success of notebook companies like Moleskine and Paperblanks clearly indicate that people still enjoy using a paper notebook. For myself, I find that a notebook is easier to carry (more so than even my netbook), more conducive to jotting things down, and that editing on paper is better than trying to do it through Microsoft Word.
But there are downsides to using a notebook. For one, I know my hand can cramp if I write for too long, and I don't write as fast as I think, meaning I'm sometimes one or two sentences away from where my pen is on the page. Furthermore, unless the paper in your notebook is 100% recycled, trees are still being cut down in order to produce paper notebooks, and the covers of those notebooks may not be terribly green, either.
So, computers are speedy, but still not as convenient (although the iPad looks like it will change that), and paper is convenient, but sometimes frustrating. Their respective uses aside, however, how do each stack up against destruction? One would assume that paper is far easier to destroy that something digital. Water can saturate and run ink; fire can burn; wind can toss loose-leaf into the air or into a pond (as Colin Firth found out in Love Actually); and earth can render words illegible. People can also steal notebooks and throw away paper mistaking it for garbage, and unless you make photocopies, you can't backup something physical. Digital writing, however, is just as susceptible to destruction as writing on paper. Work can be deleted, and if your computer is attacked, then fixing your computer can result in a wiping of your harddrive--and every file on it. The tricky thing with computers is that rarely can you see an attack coming, and unlike relegating your writing to being indoors to save it from the elements, protecting your computer isn't completely fullproof. It seems that in recent years, you need all kinds of software to protect your PC, and while Macs are famous for not being attacked by viruses, as a friend once pointed out, there will likely come a day when someone does attack Macs, and they will not know how to defend themselves. Now, not only do you need strong anti-virus software (and a host of other things), you also need USB sticks, external harddrives, and/or CDs in order to backup your work. And you need to do it regularly, otherwise when you're caught unawares, then you are left frantically e-mailing and transfering files.
And that is not fun at all.
It seems that writing has always been fraut with peril, as it were. However, I think that adding technology into the mix has made it just that bit more difficult. Yes, it's greener (you aren't using as much paper when you're saving everything in Word), however, there are dangers to digital work that don't occur with hardcopies, and take much more safeguarding against. While I don't think we're worse off, I do think it makes us more stressed.
And really, do writers need more stress?
(Image borrowed from here.)
