Weird thought: while reading Baron's essay, two conflicts appeared at the beginning while he described literacy technologies, their beginnings, and those who oppose them. These people who tend to feel threatened by these technologies fear either one of two things: they either feel that technology is inferior to older styles of writing, or that this style of writing is at great risk for creating fraud. I rarely hear the latter complaint form some of the purists of writing and rhetoric. They never complain that the actual written word could be taken for fraud other than through plagiarism. Are these critics one and the same? Do these types of critics have different thoughts, or do they care more for purity than exploration.
Also, in Sonoski's piece, he brings up a point about how reading teleintertext creates a vast opportunity for what he calls "hyperreading." He does however bring up one quote from a like-minded person where he says "hyper reading allows for no logic," and "material is chosen not because it's a privileged text, but because it's easily available." Does he have the same concerns as those purists who believe that only printed texts should be valued and admired? Are we really becoming dumber from staring at screens all day instead of viewing texts on the paper and holding them in our hands, allowing those texts to process within our minds for a while instead of for a matter of seconds?
I love the word "purist" haha you're right! It cracks me up because, as a linguistically minded person, I'm more inclined to think that any form of language and communication therein "counts" and I always think, "What the fuck does that even mean?" When people believe in preserving the way language *is*. It does have its benefits, like in France -- you can't say PURIST LANGUAGE louder: they speak the same version of French that people have been speaking for (fact check?) hundreds of years : they don't have an adapted word for "computer" instead they describe it using words that have been in the language for a very long time (calculator, I think is the direct translation). Anyway, as language evolves naturally over time, I like to think that that concept applies to technological advances as well and I "turn my nose up", or so to speak, at people who insist on living in the past. I like to look at the preservation of "old ways" in current life as choosing to be "worse off": I like to drink filtered water for a reason and it isn't because it is "trendy" it's because I don't want to die earlier than I have to for something that is easily fixable with modern technology (though language and technology of writing are a little less extreme than life and death, it is the same concept) Why make yourselves worse off when you could, theoretically be "better off"? :) BTW Thanks for posting on my blog -- I was excited to see you in our class since I've had you in other classes and haven't had a chance to hear a lot from you yet :)
ReplyDelete