Reading Starr’s chapter on the American “Information Revolution,” I couldn’t help but relate some of the issues he brings up to the age we currently live in. Near the beginning of the chapter, Starr writes that by the beginning of the 19th century, reading had become a “new activity,” and Americans were becoming acquainted with the idea of “keeping up with the times through newspapers” (86).
Based on the conversation we had in class last Tuesday, it’s quite clear that Americans have gotten over the newspaper fad. But what struck me as interesting was not the ways in which we’ve come to no longer need a newspaper (technology, etc), but what we’ve come to expect from our news because of it.
For so many Americans during this Early Modern Period, reading was such a thrill, and words contained an immeasurable amount of power. The American Revolution and the new model of self-government that arose from it created a society were citizens felt an obligation to “keep up with the times,” according to Starr. I can imagine living during this time, when picking up the newspaper would have been the most thrilling part of my day. In short, reading was the only way of discovering what existed outside of one’s personal world.
Reading through these two chapters, I found myself transported into that world where reading had such an irreplaceable value. Starr does an excellent job of describing how writing had a substantial impact on what people believed and how they lived their lives. Obviously, as a student of literature, I see a tremendous amount of value in reading and discovery through the written word. But, I also see a society today that will settle for nothing less than real, moving images in their face.
The younger generation (I call them the “youtube generation,” and I’m probably a part of it), has, for the most part, never been exposed to a print culture. Most of our news and information comes from television, the internet, and yes, youtube. But more to my point is that fact that most of the people growing up in this generation will settle for nothing less than the reality that these outlets provide. I can log onto youtube and actually look up footage of the 9/11 attacks, or view pictures of a real crime scene, or watch real people get shot in Iraq. This is the type of news that is available to us today, and anything that isn’t as “real” or “true” is simply dismissed as an orchestrated lie.
It’s remarkable to think how much this country has changed in under 300 years of history. We’ve gone from a county (and I guess the same can be said about most developed countries) where print was the primary means of informational exchange, to a place where we’ll only believe something to be true if we see it actually taking place (be it on a television or computer screen).
As Starr points out, the advancements made with the postal system, newspapers, and education all took place before the industrial revolution ran its course. It seems to me that technological advancements have served to all but eliminate the need for print. Technology is probably the most obvious reason that we’ve headed down this path, and it just makes me wonder where we’ll be in another 20 years.
I think you're spot on when you talk about the power the written word had in early America. And it was such an overarching power, too--it empowered people to learn to read, learn to write, and that in turn empowered people to publish more, more often. (Of course, it also empowered the government to use the medium of print as another way to assert its power, but that's to be expected, really.)
ReplyDeleteAnd, like you say, now the spoken word seems to have the upper-hand once again. Why read what Obama had to say when you can watch a video clip of him speaking on youtube instead? We as a society definitely view listening as an easier and more accessible task than reading, I think.
I wonder about the *kind* and *strength* of power that results from the written versus the spoken word. It used to be that the latter was far more ephemeral--but with advances in technology, a speech can be watched again and again, just as a printed article can be read ad infinitum.
I think that the "spoken word" has the upper hand not just in the news, but also in the creative outlets. I mean, how often do you hear someone say, "I'd rather see the movie"? I think the they way our culture consumes art has changed dramatically in light of technological advancements. Literature and the written word simply do not suffice as entertainment or credible news.
ReplyDeleteWe've become a culture that is almost obsessed with authenticity. I remember a few years back when some writer (I think his name was James Frey) wrote a book that he had labeled a "memoir", only to be exposed by the media (and Oprah) as a writer of fiction. All of a sudden, no one wanted to read his book anymore because it wasn't "authentic." The fact that it was a somewhat decent and well-written piece of literature had nothing to do with whether or not people read it. Once it was declared "fiction," people no longer considered it valuable.
The same can be said about recent documentary films like "Exit Through the Gift Shop", and "Catfish." There are controversies surrounding the "authenticity" of each film, and what's lost in the discussion is the quality of each film as a work of art.
I seemed to have taken these chapters down a completely different path, but I find this discussion to be fascinating. Thanks for adding Melissa!
"America must be as independent in literature as she is in Politics, as famous for arts as for arms; and it is not impossible but a person of my youth may have some influence in exciting a spirit of literary industry.”
ReplyDeleteI was about to begin my blog with the same quote! I had a Robin Williams-the-last-line-at-the-end-of Good Will Hunting Moment: "Son of a bitch stole my line." (fun fact: that line wasn't in the script, but Matt and Ben thought it was so perfect, they kept it). I too share your enthuasism for this quote, and found myself feeling also became a little more patriotic reading this chapter!
And, I'll come back to your blog tomorrow to answer "So the question I pose to you all is this: is that a bad thing, and what role should the arts (I’m thinking more towards lit, film, and music) play in a modern society?" I still have my blog post and some Easterbrook reading to do tonight, but I think it's a good question we (as academics, specifically in the Humanities) should ask! The fact that my first response to the beginning of your blog comes from one of my favorite films is a good indicator that it's a pertinent question I should be asking myself and find myself asking constantly.