An Extensive Republic: Ch 1

I know you've all seen the movie Matilda. It's a childhood classic for most of us, and even if you haven't seen it, you've most likely heard it referenced in some conversation. As most of you probably know, it's a silly film about a little girl with psychic powers and a love of reading.

Strangely, I thought of a scene from this movie when reading Brown's chapter. I'm thinking of the scene where Matilda is sitting in her living room reading while her family watches a horrible game show and eats a TV dinner. Her angry little father--played by a never-better Danny DeVito--starts to yell at Matilda and condemn her for thinking that she's better than her family as she sits and reads. He thinks that she's a "snooty" little kid that thinks reading makes her smarter and better than everyone else.

I know it's an odd reference, and I could have probably made the same connection to a number of different films or books, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read lines like:

"through the act of reading, every individual could cultivate a sense of social superiority..." (70)

"men sought out secular books and magazines as markers of respectability…"(71)

"The patina of cosmopolitanism, which extensive reading had long supplied to the gentry, had a broad appeal for upwardly striving common folk"(71)

Even in the days of the Early Republic, reading had implications of social superiority. But it seems that back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, reading was almost a requirement if you wanted to be considered a respectable member of society. As Brown says, if you just wanted to gossip or talk about the weather, you were considered "backward" and "inferior." In that regard, cosmopolitanism was a "goal" for many people, and achieving this type of social status through reading meant that you were a contributing member of society.

In a way, I see this ideology reversed in today's society. I'm not speaking of the worlds of academia, but just the normal, everyday culture that we partake in. Reading has become somewhat of a sign of arrogance. To be honest, I felt a little bit like Matilda during my undergrad years, and when I sat  in my living room reading Watchmen while my roommates watched Entourage, they felt a little like Matilda's dad.

Now, I don't speak for everyone, and that example is certainly a little extreme, but I think the basic idea applies to the ways in which reading has changed in recent years. Like we discussed in class a few weeks ago, to be "literate" in this country means to be able to navigate the web and read online. To be seen with a book in your hand is almost taboo. We've covered this topic in class on numerous occasions, but it's evident that there has been in a shift in what reading signifies to others: being well read used to mean that you were well-informed, respectable, and a contributing member to the new republic; today, other's may just think that you're a pompous jerk.

Back in the early republic, when reading and writing were means to an end to liberate a country and enlighten citizens, these connections seemed much more relevant. Today, these connections between reading and arrogance, or reading and social status, seem silly. Yes, I enjoy my books, and I'll continue to enjoy them, but here I am referencing Matilda while I watch the World Series in my pajamas…I don't exactly feel like The Most Interesting Man in the Universe (nor do I drink Dos Equis).