The Perversity of Things: review #6 of X: Thought Experiments and Toys

Continuing with my review (#6 of X) of The Perversity of Things: Hugo Gernsback on Media, Tinkering, and Scientifiction, edited by Grant Wythoff (University of Minnesota Press, 2016) - focusing now on pages 37-45 of Wythoff's rich 59-page Introduction to the 359-page volume.

Thought experiments have had a long and noble history in the evolution of human knowledge, ranging from Leonardo's sketches for devices that were not quite capable of being invented in his time, to Schrödinger's cat about quantum mechanics in our macro world which could never be implemented in actual reality.   Gernsback loved all modes of thought about what technology could accomplish, but as Wythoff details, Gernsback was unsurprisingly more like Leonardo than a quantum physicist.  Indeed, he favored more than sketches, and wanted writing in his magazines about devices that actually could be built, if often not quite performing as hoped or advertised.

Wythoff, much to my delight, has a quote from Gernsback about the first expressions of new technologies functioning as "toys".  You want to know why I think this is such a great book?  My first major, published article, reprinted half a dozen times, is entitled "Toy, Mirror and Art: The Metamorphosis of Technological Culture," which first appeared in 1977. Here's a link to a penultimate version, reprinted a decade later.  (I owe it another update, and will definitely put in a mention of Gernsback, with thanks and citation of Wythoff.)

The question with the technological toy is whether it will be developed any further.  One of the fascinating tidbits of history I did discover when I was researching TMA in 1976 was William Orton, President of Western Union Telegraph in 1881, who advised his hapless friend Chauncey Depew not to invest in Bell Telephone back then, five years after the telephone was invented, because it would never be more than a "scientific toy". (How hapless was Depew?  He was encouraged to run as a Republican against incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland in 1888 but declined because he thought Cleveland was unbeatable.  Republican Benjamin Harrison went on to win the electoral vote that year.)

Gernsback, of course, was keenly interested in developing toys into usable, revolutionary technologies.  Wythoff shows how often Gernsback failed in his immediate future.  But the backdrop of reading The Perversity of Things is how often Gernsback succeeded in the long run. His remote-controlled wireless Telimco didn't do much in the early 20th century - but as soon as I post this review I'm going to catch up with my latest series streaming on Netflix, without leaving my chair, unless I want another cup of tea.

And at some point after that, I'll be back my the next is my series of reviews of The Perversity of Things.

See also: The Perversity of Things: review #1 of X: Gernsback as Philosopher of Technology ... #2 of X: Learning by Doing ... #3 of X: The Evolution of Media ... #4 of X: Gernsback and the The First Amendment ... #5 of X: Amateurs vs. Corporations ... #7 of X: The Invention of Invention, and the Advent of Science Fiction ... #8 of X: Definitions and Fake News

Barack Obama, Rutherford Hayes, and William Orton

I heard Barack Obama call out Rutherford B. Hayes (19th President of the United States) a few hours ago, pointing out that "one of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?' That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore."

At least one historian, Nan Card, has come to Hayes' defense - saying there's no real evidence of Hayes' comment - and, you know what, even though I'm an Obama supporter, my allegiance to accurate history bids me to say Card is right.   There is no evidence that Hayes ever said that.

The timing is certainly right.   The telephone was invented in 1876, the year Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel Tilden.  Hayes became President anyway in 1877, due to the "Compromise of 1877," and served one term, until 1881.  But few people had much conception of what the telephone could do, so soon after its invention.   And the truth is that with so few telephones in anyone's hands, there was indeed not much that anyone could do then with a phone.

Certainly William Orton, President of Western Union Telegraph, was no fan.  As I detailed in my book, The Soft Edge, Orton was in 1881 asked for advice by his friend, another Republican, Chauncey Depew, who had been offered the opportunity to buy one sixth of all Bell Telephone stock into perpetuity for the sum of $10,000.  Now, ten thousand dollars was a lot more in 1881 than it is today, but it was still a pretty sweet deal.  Orton's advice, however: don't make the investment, the telephone will never be more than a "scientific toy".  Depew declined the offer.   Perhaps the Orton incident was the source of the Hayes anecdote.

And this was not the only poor moment for the hapless Depew.  He was thinking of going for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1888, which he likely would have been given (in an era before primaries), but was advised that incumbent Democrat Grover Cleveland was unbeatable.  Republican Benjamin Harrison went on to become the next President, losing the popular vote to Cleveland in the election of 1888 but prevailing in the electoral college.

The truths of history are often more fascinating than fiction.  Obama's speech writers would do well to consult it a little more carefully.