Sitting in my dorm room I see so many different examples of media surrounding me: my friends’ instant message boxes blinking as our conversation unfolds, my suitemate’s music trailing across the dorm for me to faintly hear, the television on to catch the latest Real World episode, my toolbar shows the different programs I have running—Facebook, a friend’s blog, and the movie Blow Up that I will watch at some point. Not only is there all of that, but tons of photographs, posters, and books line the walls and shelves around me. I am bombarded not just in my room, but everywhere that I go with some form of media, just waiting to make an imprint on my mind.
Vocals, instruments, and dialogue escape from all of these digital medias attacking my ears from every direction. Colors, words, and figures are everywhere in sight for my eyes to view and digest. These noises describe speech as a form of communication, while these images describe the form of writing. With the way technology has transformed over time, communication has twisted and reshaped into a multitude of formats. Speech no longer is restricted to reciting great works in order to keep an oral tradition. It has expanded far from that to just the sound that media makes, the voices you hear on the radio and in YouTube videos. Along with changes in speech there also came many different ways to use writing as media. The written media can now be interpreted as your Facebook News Feed or your latest text message. Written communications is not just letter writing and novels, it has expanded to encompass much more than that.
Howard Gardner discusses such changes in his Washington Post article, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” He says “each new medium of communication—telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web—has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration,” giving a great description of how written media has been reinterpreted. This new “media landscape” he is speaking of is broadly defined and used in so many more ways than anyone could have ever imagined and will continue to grow in different ways. While he does not believe that the “disappearance of the material book” will ever be a reality, he does see a huge shift in the way that books are viewed and the different ways that writing can be presented.
In today’s society it is incredibly hard to tell whether speech or writing is more superior. While I feel bombarded with sounds at all times, from all things, I also cannot deny the power of written words and the many ways they have come to be expressed. I honestly believe that writing is a more powerful and domineering form of communication over sound bites that last only briefly. Writing is permanent and put in print can be passed down forever. Also, I believe reading it to be the key to intelligence. In “The Dumbing of America,” also featured in the Washington Post, Susan Jacoby provides her argument that the rise of video has led to “the end of print culture.” Along with this, she believes that it has made American less intelligent overall, only caring about the fleeting video with the sound that sticks with you at the moment, but has no real long lasting qualities. These ideas bring great importance to writing over speech. I feel that my days spent buried in books greatly increased my intelligence, and has helped me read more effectively as well as provided me so much knowledge.
However, Jacoby also discusses how America has an “arrogance about that lack of knowledge” and how society no longer values the great knowledge that written texts offer. Because of this it seems that today’s society has deemed speech far more superior than writing. Speech can be taken at face value, without most people feeling the need to research or delve deeper into what they are hearing. It is seen as much more convenient than reading, requiring little effort on the audience’s part. While decades ago American citizens went to buy maps to follow along with President Franklin Roosevelt’s radio reports, interested in following along with this written tool, as Jacoby describes, this no longer would be so. People would maybe listen in, sure, but to actually look at a physical map no longer seems useful. Why bother looking up locations on a map when you are hearing the information? More likely, people would rather see the president speak on the television, so they could focus in on their appearance and hear the voice associated with the image. And to read an article or address actually written and not spoken by the president? Leave that to the intellectuals! Society does not have the time to sit and read through such a thing when it can be presented for them to listen to, no motivation required.
Gardner and Jacoby both make the point that writing and reading are both immensely important and not to be forgotten over the elusive and easy visual media that viewers have taken precedence over. I would have to agree that our society, especially our generation prefers the visual media (obviously tied to the speech that goes along with it), and has forgotten or at least begun to ignore the power of written media. I myself, while believing in that power, still am majorly guilty of using those visuals and sounds to replace written texts.
At its most simple form, speech was definitely far more superior, but that was because it was before language was ever even written. In that sense orality was the most important, and virtually the only tool for communicating and passing along stories and histories. Back in those far off days they viewed that “all sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside living organisms, [was] ‘dynamic.’” Walter Ong describes this most primitive value of sound in his essay “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” He goes on to talk about the present day form of speech in what he calls “secondary orality,” which he sees as the modern uses of speech in visual and other audio representations. He does not see today’s society as true appreciators of speech: “only quite elderly persons today can remember what oratory was like when it was still in living contact with its primary roots.”
Oral culture has changed in many ways that may not exactly pay homage to those “primary roots.” Nonetheless, today’s society still sees it as a huge step over written communication and media.
Sources:
"Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media" by Walter Ong in Communication in History by David Crowley and Paul Heyer
“The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” by Howard Gardner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
“The Dumbing of America” by Susan Jacoby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
Vocals, instruments, and dialogue escape from all of these digital medias attacking my ears from every direction. Colors, words, and figures are everywhere in sight for my eyes to view and digest. These noises describe speech as a form of communication, while these images describe the form of writing. With the way technology has transformed over time, communication has twisted and reshaped into a multitude of formats. Speech no longer is restricted to reciting great works in order to keep an oral tradition. It has expanded far from that to just the sound that media makes, the voices you hear on the radio and in YouTube videos. Along with changes in speech there also came many different ways to use writing as media. The written media can now be interpreted as your Facebook News Feed or your latest text message. Written communications is not just letter writing and novels, it has expanded to encompass much more than that.
Howard Gardner discusses such changes in his Washington Post article, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” He says “each new medium of communication—telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web—has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration,” giving a great description of how written media has been reinterpreted. This new “media landscape” he is speaking of is broadly defined and used in so many more ways than anyone could have ever imagined and will continue to grow in different ways. While he does not believe that the “disappearance of the material book” will ever be a reality, he does see a huge shift in the way that books are viewed and the different ways that writing can be presented.
In today’s society it is incredibly hard to tell whether speech or writing is more superior. While I feel bombarded with sounds at all times, from all things, I also cannot deny the power of written words and the many ways they have come to be expressed. I honestly believe that writing is a more powerful and domineering form of communication over sound bites that last only briefly. Writing is permanent and put in print can be passed down forever. Also, I believe reading it to be the key to intelligence. In “The Dumbing of America,” also featured in the Washington Post, Susan Jacoby provides her argument that the rise of video has led to “the end of print culture.” Along with this, she believes that it has made American less intelligent overall, only caring about the fleeting video with the sound that sticks with you at the moment, but has no real long lasting qualities. These ideas bring great importance to writing over speech. I feel that my days spent buried in books greatly increased my intelligence, and has helped me read more effectively as well as provided me so much knowledge.
However, Jacoby also discusses how America has an “arrogance about that lack of knowledge” and how society no longer values the great knowledge that written texts offer. Because of this it seems that today’s society has deemed speech far more superior than writing. Speech can be taken at face value, without most people feeling the need to research or delve deeper into what they are hearing. It is seen as much more convenient than reading, requiring little effort on the audience’s part. While decades ago American citizens went to buy maps to follow along with President Franklin Roosevelt’s radio reports, interested in following along with this written tool, as Jacoby describes, this no longer would be so. People would maybe listen in, sure, but to actually look at a physical map no longer seems useful. Why bother looking up locations on a map when you are hearing the information? More likely, people would rather see the president speak on the television, so they could focus in on their appearance and hear the voice associated with the image. And to read an article or address actually written and not spoken by the president? Leave that to the intellectuals! Society does not have the time to sit and read through such a thing when it can be presented for them to listen to, no motivation required.
Gardner and Jacoby both make the point that writing and reading are both immensely important and not to be forgotten over the elusive and easy visual media that viewers have taken precedence over. I would have to agree that our society, especially our generation prefers the visual media (obviously tied to the speech that goes along with it), and has forgotten or at least begun to ignore the power of written media. I myself, while believing in that power, still am majorly guilty of using those visuals and sounds to replace written texts.
At its most simple form, speech was definitely far more superior, but that was because it was before language was ever even written. In that sense orality was the most important, and virtually the only tool for communicating and passing along stories and histories. Back in those far off days they viewed that “all sound, and especially oral utterance, which comes from inside living organisms, [was] ‘dynamic.’” Walter Ong describes this most primitive value of sound in his essay “Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media.” He goes on to talk about the present day form of speech in what he calls “secondary orality,” which he sees as the modern uses of speech in visual and other audio representations. He does not see today’s society as true appreciators of speech: “only quite elderly persons today can remember what oratory was like when it was still in living contact with its primary roots.”
Oral culture has changed in many ways that may not exactly pay homage to those “primary roots.” Nonetheless, today’s society still sees it as a huge step over written communication and media.
Sources:
"Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media" by Walter Ong in Communication in History by David Crowley and Paul Heyer
“The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading” by Howard Gardner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
“The Dumbing of America” by Susan Jacoby
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
I have to comment on the disappearance of the book. I did not even know about the Kindle until we talked about it in class, and I honestly do think that because of the new technologies like the Kindle, the written book and book stores such as Borders and Barnes & Nobles will be in danger. It may not affect them right away because of the price, but books are going to have stiff competition in the future. I also do think that people are going to want to buy the new Kindle because it can read to the person, so less work for the “reader”. Actually reading a book provides more of an experience, and helps expand the knowledge or the reader. I just feel like the Kindle is another technology for all the “lazy” Americans.
ReplyDeleteHaving the actual book in my hands just seems more appealing. It’s my book, or even song, indefinitely. I own it and can share it with whomever I want. Why pay for something you are limited too, or may not even be able to keep forever?