Today in class I had an interesting discussion that I felt like continuing here online. The debate began noting the development of graphic novels through the last twenty years and went on to cover the evolution of print since the dawn of the internet. The conversation touched upon several articles I had written in the past and I felt very well versed and prepared for something that I wouldn’t necessarily have great knowledge of.
If you look at the number of people who are out reading in today’s society , there is an extremely alarming increase in the number of readers thanks to the internet and other forms of digital technology in comparison to previous years. However, this number is a false prophet when faced with obtaining epiphany. Why? There is an alarming decrease in the number of people who read literature— including fictional stories, nonfictions, biographies, or educational texts.
Most people go online and find nonfiction on Facebook, fiction from web comics, biographies on blogs, and textbooks on Wikipedia. The amount of development that can take place in such a small article is negligible. How can an author develop a deep protagonist, antagonist, and plot in such a small and short space? How can the writings of Wikipedia compare to my 
textbook on Structural Analysis, or XKCD’s humor compare to that presented in the writing of Shakespeare? Sure the information is easily accessible and readily available, but one could contest if the quantity makes up for the missing quality.
Is this necessarily bad? Is it good? Is it better to have an average society with a raised average bar but a smaller deviation from the norm? Or is it better to have a lower average with extreme cases of intelligent individuals?
I'm not sure the blanket statement that old media is better than new media is necessarily true. Shakespeare's humor, for instance, was specifically written to appeal to some of the least educated members of society, the groundlings, while something like xkcd appeals to a much more intelligent audience.
ReplyDeleteNor am i convinced it's a wholesale replacement. It's obvious that you yourself are a consumer of both styles, and I would argue that there are many like you.
These days, more information than is possible to understand in a lifetime is available for anyone to see. But it's about what meaning people draw from what they choose to look at. Just as culture changes, so do reading preferences.
ReplyDeleteWhat standard of measure are you using to determine what is "better" for society? Depth of understanding? Number of books read? And where does intelligence come into play?
P.S. I had stopped checking for new posts last week. I'm glad they're back. =)
The reason wikipedia articles are helpful is their footnotes. The articles are basically summaries, and following the footnotes will, arguably, lead you to even more information than a standard textbook.
ReplyDelete