 Thank you very much Nick and thank you Caroline for the invitation and for all the rest of you for coming. It's a pleasure to be here. As Nick says, I'm a media historian. I just finished a book that I'm calling a Media History of Documents. It is about the genre of the document, but because I'm a media historian I work it across different media technologies from 19th century commercial printing to the PDF file. I'm happy to talk about that project. This talk today is from the end of it and it's a bit orthogonal to the genre of the document. But basically I was going around the country giving talks about things like Xeroxes and maybe a graphs and everywhere I went somebody would ask, are you going to talk about zines? It was bugging me to death. You know I realize the pressing relevance of amateur cultural production, right? This culture, YouTube, Ascendant, the pajama army of the blogosphere. But this question that kept coming up about zines, you know, are you going to talk about zines? It wasn't really about the internet, at least not explicitly. So I detected nostalgia. I detected worse. I detected kind of high-eyed cultural studies trapped in a kind of celebration of subcultural expression as cultural critique. And I detected really sloppy media history, right, rushing to connect while failing to distinguish. Clay Shurkey, for instance, has suggested that the mass amaturization of publishing on the internet could be likened to the mass amaturization of literacy after the invention of movable type. I mean it's a fantastic analogy, right, in a seven-league boots kind of way. I love it. But certainly worthy of scrutiny by some of us in sensible shoes. So I guess I did eventually start to wonder, you know, what about zines? How would amateur cultural production have a history? And the kind of outgrowth of this is the, what is a zine question that I'm going to try and work my way slowly toward in this talk. So I confess I've started to really wonder what should a history of amaturization look like? And in particular, how would an account of amateurs and amateur cultural production be helpful in rendering the scope and structure of what I'll call the scriptural economy? So scriptural economy is a term cooked up by Michel de Certeau decades ago to refer to the kind of endless tapestry of writings and writings that function as both discipline and myth. Discipline because we know that writing works as a kind of profound regime of socialization and control or tool of socialization and control. And myth because we know that writings accumulate with and certainly kind of as the weight of history itself. So this scriptural economy is sort of my grounding contention is that it began to expand precipitously in the 19th century. It's a totality of writing and writings that has generally eluded scholarly attention because of the ways that contemporary disciplines divide and construct their subjects. Not only did advancing literacies and the proliferation of print formats and the widespread adoption of new media help to complicate 19th century experiences of writing and of writtenness of graphy and graphies or graphism if you like. But the specialized labors of printing and the look of printedness were themselves reframed by the eventual new devices for the production and the reproduction of writing. So I want to go back in time and start with my favorite printer of the moment his name is Oscar Harpal of Cincinnati. Because of two titles that he self-published one in 1870 and one in 1875. The first has been lovingly digitized by the Internet Archive. It's called the typograph. The subtitle is what interests me containing useful information, suggestions and a collection of examples of letterpress job printing arranged for the assistance of master printers, amateurs, apprentices and others. The second title from five years later is called Poets and Poetry of Printerdom. This one has been less lovingly digitized by Google. There it is. And again, the subtitle explains that it's a collection of poetry by people associated with printing. Now what interests me is that taking together these two titles testify to an incredibly important moment that has been largely overlooked by media history. And that's the moment when printers were about to lose or losing their monopoly on print. Not to put too fine a point on it, but before the Civil War you could say that authors only penned while only printers printed. There was a huge divide between those able to produce what looked like print and those who were not able to. And it was a relatively selective bunch, the printers, the printing trades, who could print. So both of these titles sort of work together, but I think if you think about what the title of Poets and Poetry of Printerdom implies, it's that in a sense see printers can be authors too. So I think we have to listen very carefully for a kind of a plaintive undertone that if printers can be authors, really authors should not be printers. And yet you see already from five years before the subtitle of the typograph addresses itself partly to amateurs. It seems likely that Harple's use of the term printerdom in 1875 then was a reaction to another coinage, amateurdom. The Oxford English Dictionary here is no help whatsoever since its compilers find the suffix dumb in the sense of domain in general usage at 1880. Now it's really easy to antidate the OED now that we have searchable databases. So I can't nail this down exactly. The compilers call dumb a nonce derivative, something that you kind of pick up and use once or twice on the fly. And just again from poking around in the databases it seems clear to me that printerdom was in fact a nonce derivative as incidentally is the term nonce derivative. It's actually a nonce form. But amateurdom was not. It had legs. Because we know that by the early 1870s a growing number of individuals, writers, editors and printers participated in a domain that some of them sometimes called simply the dumb. So the character of amateurdom can be gleaned from the collections of the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Mass, which has a collection of 50,000 amateur newspapers. And there's a collection about four times that size being processed at the University of Wisconsin. The earliest examples, so from before this, before 1870 or so, are either pen printed, in other words written by hand to look like print, or job printed, that is by hiring printers. But the collection indicates a tenfold increase in production after 1869 when a small press called the Novelty Press came on the market aimed at amateurs, first at like merchants and drugists who could print their own price cards and things, and then at boys. So here's an ad for the Novelty Press, more promotional material, you see the domestic setting, I love the little guy over there. So a cursory survey of the dumb can be gleaned from contemporary sources and I'm just going to use two in a rough and ready kind of way, an article from The Children's Magazine, St. Nicholas, from 1882, and a year later the publication of this 330 page reminiscence by one Thomas Henry Harrison. And he spends the bulk of this 330 pages, by the way, sort of recounts his career as an amateur journalist all the way from 1875 all the way to 1878, right? So from the age of 15 to the age of 18, and there was a second volume promised. Now accounts like these actually agree in most of their particulars because it seems that the features of amateurdom quickly came to have a potted quality, rehearsed again and again as core themes that consumed the geographically vast literary society of this little literary world as Harrison put it. Amateurdom was intensely self-referential, forever consolidating itself as itself and people who look at these little papers today are amazed at their lack of content. They're really about amateurdom as a phenomenon common in each other's papers and the papers they receive. Motivations were clear. The point was to become known to and indeed even to become storied among the large and widely dispersed group of amateurs with who you traded your publications via the mails. So there are lots of really interesting things about amateurdom organized as such, but I'm going to try and focus on just one today so I don't get too out of control and that is what exactly the amateur in amateurdom specifies. Harrison indicates when a publication he refers to is prof by comparison, but I guess the first thing I'd say is I think it'd be a mistake to distinguish amateur from professional and leave it at that because that dichotomy needs to be historicized, it needs to be forever historicized and kind of introduces anachronism if you wield it too bluntly. Among other things, professional journalism as such did not exist, no journalism schools, no associations for professional journalists, no avowed ideal of objectivity yet in evidence. And we know things like authorship, publishing, editing were themselves professional in this period of the post-Bellum era, only in the sense that people may or were known to make a living through some combination of these roles. Printing itself was of course not a profession, it was a trade, it was a trade dressing itself as an art, famously the art preservative of other arts, one that had for decades been experiencing wrenching structural changes, loosely industrialization, as some work became de-skilled and mechanized like press work and other work like type setting was not or not yet. The apprenticeship and journeyman system was breaking down, print production is experiencing explosive growth in this period, but talented journeyman printers like Oscar Harpel really suffered, so a very fluid picture there. In particular this jobbing press, the commercial press became more and more distinct from newspaper work or book publishing in this period, and one of those points of distinguishing or distinction was technological, more and more versions of the jobbing press, these smaller platen presses which eventually then become miniaturized for children. Every man, his own printer, was one tagline, every boy, a Ben Franklin. And I actually have just a little bit of a sidebar here, this is William St. Clair's picture of editions of Don Juan across the 19th century, he's making a point about cost, in particular about intellectual property and cost, and the way the book market sort of tranches down to different classes over time. And I just, the picture just sort of reminded me of this picture of the little platen presses in the same period, but be careful it's really an analogy, not a correlation. The amateur papers though, and I should have brought pictures of them, are by and large, they vary in size, but lots of them are tiny, three by six inches, because they're printed on these little tiny presses. According to Harrison the real history of amateurdom didn't begin until the novelty press and other accounts agree. So the figure cut by Benjamin O. Woods and his little platen or lever press in these accounts, like those that have followed, might suggest that amateurdom might be sort of thought of in technological terms. But I think that this too would be a mistake. Let's generalize, if we can, that new media do not themselves make amateurdom commercial culture producers. Access to new tools was key, but more importantly I think we have to, following Karen Sanchez Epler, think about access to commercial culture, to consumer culture. Sanchez Epler has worked on the enormous and extremely swift shifts in the cultural understanding of childhood work and play than underway in American culture. Childhood leisure, and here especially boyhood leisure because of domestic culture, was a class privilege, increasingly enshrined in compulsory schooling laws and epitomized in the merchandising of goods specifically for children. By this light the amateurs of amateurdom, mostly but not entirely male, can't be defined against prof as much as they can against the figure of a working class child. So Thomas Harrison's corresponding other wasn't Oscar Harpal, it was the news boy, the boot black, the printer's trade apprentice or a throwback the printer's devil. If the figure of the working class child was associated in the popular imagination with play, Sanchez Epler indicates, then it made perfect sense that middle class play got associated with work. Again and again the amateurs insist to their readers how hard they work, how much time and money and effort their papers require, while stressing that their efforts were self-improving yet money losing, not profit making. So adamantly describing itself as a realm of hard work and money losing, amateurs were able at once to participate in consumer culture while rejecting its logic. They weren't just buying the same things, they spent time and energy but lost money. The repeated lip service paid to non-profit production locates amateur newspapers as Miranda Joseph writes about non-profit organizations generally at the absent heart of capitalism. A place where the very subjects of capitalism have gone missing revealing their discontents. And these subjects abscond by dint of compensatorily communitarian endeavors. Today we'd call the result community, same root as communism, by at least 1872 or 73 they said amateur them. Now the amateurs were individually ambitious, unstintingly critical of one another, it's an incredibly fractious bunch dressing their labors in a kind of classically liberal discourse of the educable self. I mean these really were capitalists in training at the same time they were playing this sort of countervailing communal sort of sphere. Now these tensions involved with training for capitalism by abandoning its prudative object profit made perfect sense within the ongoing construction of young adulthood as a liminal sphere between and yet neither. We might consider too that these same tensions emerged partly as an outgrowth of readerly subjectivities involved in the post-bellum explosion of secular magazines for young readers. Harrison himself acknowledges amateur them's debt to Oliver Optick's magazine which editorialized as early as July 1867, so it's first year that we suppose Lowe's press is best for boys if they don't like it try hose and I'm really a hardware geek so I'm showing the presses instead of what they're printing which I realize is bad. So this is a Lowe's press it was a field press kind of a proofing press used during the civil war and just so you get the joke that's the hose press there. So Oliver Optick's magazine is one of this huge sort of burst of magazines that come on the scene in the post-bellum moment that are secular and addressed to children. They all have letters columns. Oliver Optick's very quickly has another column in addition to these correspondence columns called wish correspondence that lets readers write in specify what they want to correspond with other readers about and thereby sort of cut the magazine out of the circuit. So connecting readers that way through the males. Like the shared fantasy of a textual commons which Jared Gardner suspects cuts across the success of so many of the earliest American magazines by encouraging feelings of shared ownership that may have actually inhibited the paying up of subscriptions. These new magazines for children carried mixed messages. Yes they were crucial agents in the interpolation of children as the subjects of consumer culture and yet they also helped spin this accessory magic of a less or even a non-commercial communal domain. So the the the Phindicex psychologists who would eventually describe adolescence as a stage in life noticed a reading craze as kind of symptomatic of some adolescence. I mean I think that if they had stumbled upon amateur them they would have just described it as an extremely acute version of the reading craze. Right readers who were so so crazed that they they wrote, edited, printed and published. One example is chronicled in amateur lore. Following the model of earlier magazines golden days for boys and girls cultivated correspondence clubs among its readers and then at some point one of the members of one of these clubs suggested hey let's have a little newspaper the idea caught fire so then you get multiple clubs of readers with their individual papers until one day it was September 2nd 1895 a 14 year old named William H. Greenfield started the United Amateur Press Association to organize them all and that same trajectory from the readership of commercially published magazines with letters columns to clubs of readers to amateur publications and finally to a self-organizing sphere of postal communication in exchange also would describe the kind of 1930s birth of fanzine fandom as it was called science fiction fandom but that's just getting a little ahead of the story. I should caution that it's a pattern except when it's not. So I can emphasize that money losing amateurs like Harrison and Greenfield didn't say they were jumping off the good ship Capital right or deferring adulthood. They said exactly the opposite. It was really feelings that gave them away. Amateurdom was an affective state as well as a textual commons. Young Harrison became possessed he says with the desire to join amateurdom. A printing fever seized amateur David Bethune elsewhere it was a mania for editorship that prevailed. The writer H.P. Lovecraft suffered a short-lived poetical delusion when he first encountered amateurdom in 1914 at the ripe age of 23. As Lovecraft explains in a great little reminiscence called what amateurdom and I have done for each other he was introduced to the United Amateur Press Association when he was as close to the state of vegetation as any animal well can be. Perhaps I might have been compared to the lowly potato in its secluded and subterranean quiescence. So the United in which Lovecraft quickly becomes a kind of operatic gave him at once a renewed will to live the very world in which to live and also life itself. So that figure of the lonely and secluded quiescence potato known to us today of course as the couch potato. Alludes I think to Samuel Butler's Aerohone which has this funny riff on the emotions and sentience of a potato and of course Lovecraft would go on to succeed as a professional writer in the Aerohonian vein at the same time that he remained a lifelong proponent and participant in amateurdom. But I want to pause. Is amateurdom the amateurdom that Lovecraft joined and described in the 1910s and 20s the same amateurdom of Harrison and the rest from the 1870s and 80s? Better questions. Are amateurs of one era the amateurs of another? Is DIY publishing the same thing whenever and however you happen to do it? So much of what Lovecraft says about the United rings true. He acknowledges origins around 1870. Notes common yearnings to have the thoughts and ideals permanently crystallized in the magic medium of type and he celebrates those who labor purely for love without the stultifying influence of commercialism. The amateur press associations the United and the National formed back in 1876 had persisted and matured each holding annual meetings, publishing an official organ, serving as clearing houses, awarding annual laureates they called them and the various genres of amateurdom, poetry, sketch, history and essay, as well as eventually a prize for the best home printed paper which I think indicates a kind of decline in the number of people who were printing their own. Yet by Lovecraft's telling amateurdom was open to all comers, boys and girls of 12 and men and women of 60, parents and their sons and daughters, college professors and grammar school pupils. So amateurdom I think had become less of a stage in life, a mixture of training for an unspoken deferral of and more of a kind of clubhouse or a hideaway geared toward self-improving self-expression, tenanted by successive waves, actually probably trickles, of amateurs warmed partly by the accumulated lore of years gone by. This lore sort of peppered with the names of individual amateurs and the names of their generally short-lived papers. Along the way we might speculate that amateurdom had also become less of a formative assertion of middle class identity and more of a formative assertion within it. That same distinction between amateur and professional or commercial publications held sway, but no longer were the contrast of others of amateurdom working class urban youths or the long gone trade apprentice. More likely the contrast of others of amateurdom were now either sorry couch potatoes, right, the isolate and quiescent subjects of the emergent mass culture. Or they were other amateurs finding their own alternative, some of which obviously would have been comfortable with the term the label amateur and others not. So think of organized amateur athletics or high school yearbook and college newspaper. I wonder in particular about amateur radio, which exploded on the scene with the 1906 crystal set and boy operator playing the role of the 1869 novelty press and boy Ben Franklin. The far flung radio operators didn't need to imagine a realm called amateurdom. They had the one called the ether, though perhaps it was a little bit diffuse. They didn't need to exchange correspondence through the males because they were communicating over the air. Though the eventual practice of exchanging QSL cards by mail to confirm radio contact makes really interesting food for thought. Even in less than a decade, amateur radio exceeds amateur journalism by three orders of magnitude as wireless captured the public imagination. Meanwhile, the amateurs, writers, editors, printers and publishers of amateurdom's long maturity and today there's still a small group calling themselves the fossils that work like alumni. A history that tended to be chronicled year by year, elections, schisms and intrigues, a fleeting golden age, studied with the names of predecessors and publications. Harrison had approvingly noted a shift from sensational to what he called pure literature during his brilliant of brief career. The year 1886 brought turmoil surrounding a literary lyceum dead by 1888. 1881 saw the publication of a 500 page retrospective literary anthology or cyclopedia. Lovecraft eventually likened amateurdom to a university stripped of every artificiality and conventionality and thrown open to all without distinction. Its membership seeking mutually to draw their minds from the commonplace to the beautiful. As now a putative revival of the uncommercial spirit, amateurdom had become a semi-modern gesture at authenticity. Evolved against the slick magazines that heralded mass culture and evolved as well against the, we know, the kind of uptake of literary critical authority by the academy so that literary critical authority stops being something that's constructed by commercial editors and publications and moves into the academic sphere so that Lovecraft and his compatriots take effectively soldiered on as junior elementary esthetes exerting their own individual discernment toward a common cause while literature is no longer regularly the purview of amateurs. So my answer I guess would be no that amateurs of one era are not the amateurs of another even when a continuous tradition can be traced among them. Lovecraft was no Thomas Harrison in more ways than one. What changed and continues to change across time is not the DIY ethos or even what the amateur happens to do, but really the way that doing and its doability are situated within the broader cultural economy and the lives that cultural economy helps to shape. Self publishing is situated according in part to ongoing constructions of class, race, gender and stage of life. That much is clear as well as ongoing articulations of domesticity to disciplines, vocations and professions. We know too as have only been hinting that amateur doings and doability would come to be situated in relation to both the structure and the content of mass culture and here it's helpful for me to remember that Richard Oman starts the clock on mass culture with those slick commercial magazines of the mid 1890s. Of course it's the model of commercial broadcasting radio again developed in the late 1920s and 30s that would become the kind of epitome of mass culture for its later and most influential critics. Actually mass culture is less to the point I want to make here than managerial culture. The so called managerial revolution of the late 19th century produced the modern corporation and with it the modern office, replete with genres and new tools for communication new bureaucratic imperatives, new labor cohorts and configurations. The printer's monopoly on the look of printedness knocked a little bit a skew with amateur printing collapsed with the proliferation of typewriters and an ensuing century of innovation directed at reproducing type scripts without setting type. So mimeograph, hectograph, we call it ditto eventually in this country, photo offset and eventually in these rocks. Then leading on to the different technology of desktop publishing. Journalism like English professordom had become a profession but I think these changes are much more salient and widespread obviously. The number of workers who went to work sat reading and writing kind of the instruments of corporate speech, bills, memos, reports, the rest. Of course it's going to take a lot more than generalizations like these to explain the specific forms that amateur publishing has taken in the extended era of managerial capital and I know I'm going to run out of time. I could probably use Lovecraft to connect amateurdom to fandom. And then I could use the commercial publisher Hugo Gernsback to connect radio to fandom too but I'm just going to jump to fandom. I want to say a couple quick words about fandom and then I'll work my way towards general thoughts about DIY publishing and try to get to at least to this question of what is a zine? And that pressing question of are you going to talk about zines? So to what extent, to the extent there was one, the Thomas Harrison of fan zine fandom was named Sam Moskowitz. A prolific chronicler and devoted collector who became a fan at the age of 14 and then stuck around for life even working for a short time for one of the Gernsback magazines. He published a multi-part history of fan zine fandom The Immortal Storm which is 250 pages. It's only about the 1930s but Moskowitz wanted more. He wanted a continuation that would be appropriately bibliographical so about the fan zines and detailed. So all I'm going to do is try and read the immortal storm with a couple of fan zine publications from the mid 1950s when Immortal Storm was kind of collected into a type script volume and reproduced to give you a kind of snapshot of the fan zine fandom. By 1953 and this is sort of a census of titles if you like fan zine fandom was roughly say 9% printed, 17% ditto, 60% mimeograph and then 14% either other technologies or just not known to the people who were indexing forms In general and this is just a very crass generalization printing came first small fan zines maybe 6 by 9 inches then the day of the hectograph dittos which grew them into 8.5 by 11 in purple but reduced in addition size to about 50 or 60 and then finally the mimeograph became a kind of dominant technology across several decades at least into the 1960s of the fan zines as late as 1986 one astute fan noted Riley that mimeography recapitulates hagiography again it's an incredibly self referential project. Earlier fans wrote not of hagiography but of egoboo short for egoboosting like amateur them for it fan zine fandom was forever consolidating itself as itself by dint of chronicles, conventions published comments, correspondence and collecting as well as reviews digests, indices, insider jokes and jargon. Like amateur them fandom was put a premium on originality and authenticity yet I think it also largely escaped any anti-modern tinge by focusing on what one fan called the literature of tomorrow, so science fiction. I think I could safely generalize that fandom to this point remained more engaged than amateur them had with the for profits fear from which it also distinguished itself. And this is in part due to crossover by figures like Lovecraft and Moskowitz as well as a certain amount of shoulder rubbing at these conventions and for the purposes of collecting. One might speculate that fandom differed in this respect partly because science fiction the catalyzing object of fandom self-imagination evolved and persisted as a low brow form. So that literary critical authority over it was never relegated to the academy but remained to be negotiated across commercial publications and of course eventually spheres like Hollywood. The late 19th century evolution of the literary as an object of academic inquiry made no difference to fandom though the evolution of psychology as an object of inquiry likely did. So the amateurs of amateur them had been all about character but the fans of fandom were really about they had personalities if you like. The denizens of fanzine fandom almost universally white and male into the 1960s saw themselves as selves and selves of a special sort. It wasn't membership that made them unique it was rather a kind of prior uniqueness that made them sensible as members is the point that sort of hotly debated in a lot of different ways in fanzine fandom. Now fandom persists of course radically diversified expanded online now we have scholarly fan studies to a dom of sorts if there ever was one relying not on amateur self-publishing but on the not exactly profit driven publishing of the contemporary academy. But I'm going to have to break off my story of doms amateur them and fandom here before the language of underground or subculture versus mainstream takes hold in order to reflect briefly if speculatively the history of amateurs DIY and by extension the character of zines. You've seen that rather than taking the kind of self chronicling of these groups entirely at face view I've tried instead to gesture more broadly toward the scriptural economy it's trajectory of engagement with consumer culture in particular and it's late 19th century expansion in the service of managerial capital. That framing I hope helps to reveal some of the shortcomings of any dichotomy between mainstream and subculture or maybe better put between public and counter public. In one sense amateur them and fandom are classic counter public works in Michael Warner's terms. Their self-imagined realms of belonging evolved both by and for communication and in opposition to the larger reigning public sphere. Yet it would be well to remember that the Habermasian public sphere with its sharp line between public and private between the home and the coffee house the manuscript letter and the printed news sheet depends upon a very simple very idealized notion of print publication the event of issuing into public that I think really if it pertains at all pertains in really selective contexts of maybe the 17th and 18th centuries and not for later periods or broad contexts. Certainly today the eventfulness of publication is complicated by the scale and temporalities of the Internet the entanglement of publication with search for instance the prevalence of dead links and dynamic content the uneven obscure timetables of update and subscription. But even before the Internet in this extended period of the extended era of amateurdom and of fanzine fandom the pressures of social differentiation and the growth of institutions of which the modern corporation only looms the largest worked increasingly to complicate the eventfulness of publication. In short amateur newspapers fanzines and their successors have always been imagined in contrast to commercially published periodicals but that imagination itself has become increasingly incumbent upon other unacknowledged contrasts between the zine and the less published or the semi-published forms that issue forth amid our increasingly institutionalized existence. And here I'm thinking of the reports and proposals of the corporate workplace the newsletters of the association and congregation the pamphlets of the public health agency the course packs once ubiquitous on college campuses even that much maligned annual Christmas letter proper to the most important institution of control the middle class nuclear family. Amateurdom and fandom by these lights are less counterpublics than they are counter institutions self-organizing assemblages of members mail media genres and lore that defy institutionalization partly by reproducing it cacophonously in an adolescent key. Now later zines and alt arenas differ from the dumps of amateurdom and fandom no doubt yet they too might be considered not just for how they stand in contrast to commercial publication but also for the ways in which that contrast helps to obscure other things including the forever expanding and beroically structured dominion of the document the genre of the document. So let me just end with a kind of appeal and an anecdote if you like. If we've gotten particularly good at noticing the ways that amateur cultural production has emerged and thrived online I think we could get better at seeing all the angles from which DIY might be perceived and understood all these sort of relevant contrast. That pressing question of zines are you going to talk about zines I think is in some sense a nostalgic move but there's a lot more to it too. So I just really want to try and embed all this in a large the question if you like in something of a larger window of questions and to that end I'll just sort of cut off with an anecdote. This is from Alvin Toffler the futureologists who as early as 1980 was using the term prosumer alas not prosumeridum I checked. But I think you'll be surprised that in his sort of prediction which comes pretty close to today's independent video home offices distributed computing his prediction for the future he appeals to 1980s era DIY and what I find surprising is just the broad ambit here. So if you like these are his examples home pregnancy test kits direct long distance telephone dialing self-service gasoline pumps and ATM machines all brand new and really shocking in 1980 for those of you who can teleport yourselves back as I can. I think if you add mixtapes, copieshop and film processing he asks you get a really nice set of context to start thinking about desktop publishing say which would arrive a few years later courtesy of Aldous and Apple to the embrace of amateurs and others. Thank you very much.