Otherwise Related | In Litero: An Evaluation of Literature

Disclaimer: You are reading one of my early blog posts for a class and will have no context for what I’m about to say. For that, I apologize

Hayles asks, “Will the dissemination mechanisms of the internet and the Web, by opening publication to everyone, result in a flood of worthless drivel?” What a great question!

It’s subtly poking at an issue beyond what we talked about last class period (which was, loosely, how the internet is changing the way we deal with words and reading). It’s instead talking about the phasing out of a familiar paradigm—the unknown artists get “signed,” “published,” etc. by a company, and those companies make them famous/successful. But now, the internet allows artists/writers to cut out this familiar middle man, and it’s fair to say the middle man won’t go quietly. And should they? Perhaps we need them to act as a filter so we are not so overwhelmed by choices that we give up trying to filter out the good stuff in a sea of trash. But several things should be kept in mind.

I would first like to point out that, if words are printed on a page, cut, bound, and sold in a bookstore, it doesn’t make it more “literary” than words on a screen. Therefore, publishers don’t necessarily work as filters. There are plenty of items that I see while strolling thought Barnes and Noble that I think belong more rightly in a shredder than in someone’s hand. There is one particular best-selling author of last decade I’m thinking of whose books, from a “writer-ly” perspective, don’t hold a candle to half the blogs I read. It’s as much amateur hour at the bookstore as it is online.

I’m also reminded of one of my first smart phones, a Blackberry, and the brand new app craze. I wanted to get in on the app fun, but the only place I could find them was on slightly shady sites, accessed through my browser. There were no guarantees I would even get something safe for my phone, let alone what I thought I was paying for, and frankly, weeding through and trying to find something I thought might be quality-made was a pain. Then I found the Blackberry App Store, where user reviews determined which apps I would see first. It was like a giant self-correcting system–after all, I didn’t want the equivalent of an app “publisher” to limit my choices and control the market. I just wanted to know what wasn’t garbage. I see no reason why we can’t develop a reader’s version of this system for electronic lit. And, for fear of eliminating a potential job position before I’m even out of college, let me suggest English majors as the authoritative (but not the sole) members of this community of readers!

Disclaimer: You are reading one of my early blog posts for a class and will have no context for what I’m about to say. For that, I apologize

Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Nicholas Carr

Reading in a Digital Age, Sven Birkerts

No one can deny we’re living in an era of rapid technological advancement, and the blistering rate at which things are changing has (predictably) become the source of a lot of hand-wringing. I have no patience for it.

“Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy,” Carr says. “My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose…Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages.” “Nothing penetrates, or punctures,” echoes Birkerts. They complain about a change they notice in themselves and they interpret the change as negative. I have no problem with that–we all have things about ourselves we would like to change. My suggestion to people who are unhappy with their internal state of affairs is that they change whatever is bothering them about themselves. These men are upset that they, out of habit, no longer read analytically? Then they should make it a point to read analytically. I don’t like the insinuation that the entire march of progress should stop because the authors of this article feel as if they are developing adult onset A.D.D. and don’t feel like breaking bad habits.

I also don’t appreciate the implication that this issue is as clear-cut and universal as a mathematic equation (specifically, progress = bad). I, for instance, wish I was able to skim readings for key information. I never learned how to do that. For me, it’s analytic, hanging-on-every-word reading or nothing. Because of it, I never have any free time to read for enjoyment during semesters. In fact, I don’t really have any free time at all. I’m busy squinting at a sentence in Critique of Pure Reason for ten minutes, thinking, “My god, what does it all mean?” I see the ability to mentally multi-task and pick out valuable information as a skill, not a defective way of reading.

But what really bothers me is the terror of change and nostalgia for the safety of the status quo. “I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid,” quotes Carr at the end of his article, noting his feeling of kinship with the speaker. “I can feel it,” and, “I’m afraid” are not the words of a person being logical and rational. Birkerts put it this way: “Metaphor, the poet, imagination. The whole deeper part of the subject comes into view. What is, for me, behind this sputtering, is my longstanding conviction that imagination—not just the faculty, but what might be called the whole party of the imagination—is endangered.” That’s simply a supply/demand issue. I don’t think the demand for good storytelling is going away any time soon. And I know plenty of people who want the supply of works worthy of the title “literature” to keep flowing. Creativity and imagination isn’t being hindered by technology—it’s being set free. And if people still want the novel, it will stick around. If they don’t, it will be because we found a format we like better. Everyone needs to calm down. We are not going to hell in a handbasket. So, to these article writers, I would say this: Don’t bang your fist on the table and declare what kind of reading is best for everyone. And stop trying to freeze time in a moment of your choosing.