where the reading AND writing play well together
It is not often I use the term corporate tool. Even in my days as an angry young man I was more likely to favor the current South Park position rather than the stereotype hippie. That said, an article blasting Internet ReadingI can only be characterized as pandering to the corporate elite.
In a nutshell, the article suggests that anything but the 18th century novel, and it’s decedents, are unsuitable means of developing the young mind. Only this forms prepare students for the ultimate in tests, such as the SAT and AP English, and only such readings can get one into Ivy League colleges. Why we want to push everyone into Ivy League Universities, and how reading is relevant to such universities given that they are just assembly lines for Wall Street Financial Jobs where the students primary responsibility is to invent creative ways to separate the stupid from their money, is not explored.
I see two major issues with the analysis in this article. First, is a good eduction defined by a very slowly changes cannon of books. Put another way, is reading a certain number of certain books, and writing a certain number of well marked papers on said books, sufficient grounds to state that one is well educated. Clearly the answer to this is ‘it depends’. Certainly by reading a canon, one then has the ability to interact in culturally acceptable ways with others that have read the same canon. It is like watching Friends or Lost or I Love Lucy. If you have the cultural knowledge, one is culturally accepted.
The question is then does culturally literate equate to an education? I think readers can infer my answer to this question. I do not believe so. While reading a canon may make one more likely to pass a test, and more likely to interact well with collegues and employers, I do not see that it implies an education. Yes, reading War and Peace or Ulysses or The Confederacy of Dunces requires valued skills, is the skill so valued that the person who can do Calculus, but not read a novel, be deemed uneducated?
So while I deem the reading of the novel a skill, and the reading of the canon a cultural advantage, I do not see a great long term advantage of those that spend all day reading the complete works of Henry James over those that just read blogs for an equivalent time.
Which leads to the second issue, and the main thrust of this note. Reading is less than half of what the study of english might entail. It is in fact a less creative part of the study of language, and while a very important starting point, it is an unfortunate state that we find ourselves when all too often reading is the effective endpoint. Writing is, unfortunately, often secondary.
This is where the Internet may improve the situation. In many traditional education forums, one reads a long novel, things about it, then writes a short paper with long quotes from the book. The personal creativity, if any actually exists, results from the patching together of these quotes to make a paper of the required length.
Contrast this to what often happens on the net. One reads a short passage, most shorter than what I write. Then one has the opportunity to write a short passage in response. This pattern arguably results in more authentic responses, as the student has a different understanding of the expectations. With the canon there is an understanding of a time tested correct answer. With the writings on the net, there is still a sense of discovery, that the responses might be debatable. Of course, there is not the pracitice of silent sustained reading, or the practice of integrating and distilling diverse ideas, but that is one skill among many.
So, the reading and writing about a canon develops some skills which are arguably useful. Reading and writing on the net develops some skills that are arguably useful.
If both are arguably useful, then why did I wig out when I starting this note. Because there is clearly a bias in the corporate media to denigrate the Internet as a valid reading medium, and this denegration may be be understood in terms of profit making potential. Right now being ‘well educated’ means reading the right books. The right books are determined largely by publishers who make money by selling millions of books. These publishers choose the authors, convince the public that they must read these books, and then make money on the large volume. Educated smart people read novels. The novels are published by people who only make money by selling them in large quantities. The internet puts this system in danger.
While we may still choose to read novels, or magazines, or other mass produced items, the internet changes out method of consumption. Instead of reading what everyone else is reading, we can what we want. More importantly, writers can write what they want, without worrying that a publisher will say no. We enter into a creative collaborative community that is not overruled by profits. I can write and publish a blog. Maybe no one reads it. It is cheap enough not to matter. Others can publish stories. Publishers do not make the money they used to make. Publishers complain that because people are no longer reading their novels, the public is becoming stupid. But how can we become more stupid when we are writing more? What Language teacher would not rather have the student write more, even if it meant reading less. Perhaps, if we believe the articles, many language teachers. But I hope that it is a issue of corporate greed, and not another case of people being so devoted to a canon that all logic and creativity and perspective is lost.
