Umberto Eco's essay covers the future of literacy...in part Eco is responding to critics like Sven Birkerts who think the book will be made obsolete. Birkerts is not excited at that prospect, in fact, he thinks it will be terrible. What is Eco's response to such critics? Does he think that printed books are on the out? What issues does he focus on? Do you agree with him? Eco splits his views into optomistic and pessimistic. Which side do you fall on in terms of your feelings about the future of literacy? If you had pick the pessimistic side, what concerns would you have?
16 comments:
Eco writes in his article that his optimistic side allows him to think that after reading what's on the computer screen people will go on to read books. He then goes to say how previously illiterate people once exposed to television begin to read written work like newspapers. I thought it was interesting to learn what Eco thought were the things that threatened literacy. For example, their price, the competition among written works, and the effect books have on the earth's oxygen source. I share the same optimism with Eco. I think that reading perpetuates more reading, even if the information is found on the computer. I feel that books will still remain a primary source for information
Eco's view on the future of books is quite different from that of critics like Birkerts. He doesn't think books are going to disappear anytime soon. While literacy today means being able to read and interpret more than one medium, Eco doesn't think books are losing their place in our fast-paced, technology-based world. Eco believes that the current generation of young people is a computer-oriented generation and that the younger generation can actually read faster - and to a degree learn faster - than older generations. Eco also says that the "new generation" is trained to read at an incredible speed. He argues that despite a rise in technology, the main feature of computer screens is alphabetic letters rather than purely images. But, he also realizes that reading a computer screen is not the same as reading a book. I completely agree with this. I would much rather read physical pages from a book than words on a computer screen. I think most people prefer to read longer documents on paper, rather than on a computer. Eco is both optimistic and pessimistic about future literacy. He thinks that computers are creating a new form of literacy but are unable to satisfy all of the intellectual needs of a human being. In this sense, his optimistic side sees future generations being able to read computer screens impulsively, but he also thinks that people will also feel dissatisfied with only reading electronic text and look to some other form of reading for enjoyment. I agree with Eco on most of what he says. Being a journalism major, I am constantly told that the end of printed newspapers and magazines is drawing nearer. While new forms of electronic media may be invented in the future, I think print media is here to stay. Technology is not always reliable, thus printed materials are sometimes preferred over electronic ones. Also, many people tend to be very traditional when it comes to reading and consuming information and news. Every time in history when a new medium has been introduced, people have speculated the extinction of another type of medium. TV did not bring the demise of newspapers or radio. The Internet did not bring about the fall of any of the mediums - or at least not yet. I stand by Eco and am still hopeful that printed books will be around for longer than we might expect.
Eco believes that books are on the outs, but I do not think that he is proud of that. Eco likes to read older books, reading books is a treat for him after reading the computer screen all day. He believes that an effort must be made to save books because they will simply vanish due to the aging process. I think that critics of learning things online and reading books online, are only scared of this new technology that they don't quite understand yet. Like with the case of the pharoah, books were a new thing and therefore scared the pharoah. People don't like change, and this excessive use of computers in learning is merely signaling this change.
On another note, I totally understand where Eco is coming from when he talks about his love for older books. I love going to used book shops and searching for antique books, it is a great thrill. That and I love finding books with writing in them, it just gives me a story within a story...what was that person thinking, was this for a class, did some professor tell them to write this?
Does he think that printed books are on the out? What issues does he focus on? Do you agree with him?
I would like to combine these three. He seems to focus a great section of his article on the extinction of printed materials. What's more, he seems to almost whine a bit about how books no longer last very long since we make the pages out of regular paper and how this means that we will lose a lot of manuscripts from history. I do not totally agree with this. Rather, I think, as in your first easter egg, books will be recorded on computers. This will be a safe way to store and preserve old classics. Those that are read often, are probably already on the web. Yes, I suppose we will lose some less common, but it's bound to happen. He seems to think that we are going to lose all the classics, on the contrary, I think they will be retained on our new technologies. He also does not seem to hold a firm opinion on if books are becoming obsolete. He does suggest some ways to "ration" the classics and such so that we don't lose them, but in today's world, it is more likely that we will add them to computer collections. I think that while books will remain important for MANY more years, they will slowly decline. Maybe over the next 100 years even, but I do think eventually, however gradually, everything will be stored on computers of some sort. If people want to have hard copies as Eco suggests, they will print themselves copies, as we do for this class. Times are changing, ever so gradually, but they are changing, and I do not think we will lose books (in the broad sense of the term).
Which side do you fall on in terms of your feelings about the future of literacy? If you had pick the pessimistic side, what concerns would you have?
I do feel that the future of literacy may change. New technology is changing every day. I agreed wiht Eco point about photocopying especailly considering I have a photocopy of this article in my hand. A book can easily be posted online and in the future more and more people can access it. Also I agree with " books are menaced by book". When I am in barnes and noble looking for a good book it can be overwhelming. I usually use the internet to look one up before I go buy it. However I hide it hard to truely believe books will be obsolete in the future. I would much rather have a book in my hand then a photocopy. I also hate reading long articles on the computer. My main concern would be who does get to deciede what books are republish. Eco refers back to the Middle Ages and the loss of literacy. Are hundred year old books still going to be publish in years from now. I have a copy of the Illiad in my drawer but in 50 years from now will that still be in print. I would like to think that books will always still be publish, but I cant ignore the advances made every day in modern technology.
I love that Eco was both optimistic and pessimistic because I tend to be very much the same way. However, unlike Eco my view varies from day to day...not hour by hour. Today I feel optimistic...
Eco is optimistic when he says our generation is trained to read at a rapid pace. Today's world literacy is made up of many different media. Eco seems to think that in the future we will speak in short crypt phrases. I kind of agree with this point. I mean, if you look back to Shakespeare's style of writing it is fancy and flowery. He basically uses a lot of words to say something that this generation could say in much, much less. The length of our writing and speech has decreased throughout history. Why would it stop now?
I know some of my friends have already shortened their sentences my using silly instant message terms. It started out as a joke to say, "lol that is hilarious!" or "I'll brb." But now, these IM phrases have become a part of our daily lingo.
I agree with Startobe1: "...his optimistic side allows him to think that after reading what's on the computer screen people will go read books." I know that I grow tired of staring at a screen all day. At the end of the day I crawl into bed and relax with a nice book. Maybe Eco is right about the computer stimulating needs that it can't satisfy. It gives my nightly ritual an underlying reason of existence...
Eco is an optimist about books, and eventhough he may agree that concentrating on reading might decrease your other senses he still believes that it is more important that using the computer. He does being to talk about how more people who are illiterate watch tv instead of read, but eventhough tv may be a larger source, they are producing magazines and other print that makes these more illiterate people want to read these articles and learn more. Unfortunately these writings aren't the best forms of educational information but atleast its a start. I would personally stick with his optimistic side with the books because eventhough we are a more technology savy generation, i do agree with him that its immensely harder to read on the computer screen and i generally have to print something out if its going to be longer than the average news article online. If i was a pessimist about the situation i would be afraid of the increase of slang in formal writing, but at one point some child has to be taught what is the correct form of writing.
I believe that Eco recognizes the change in literacy: partly the general decline of literacy, but more so the unexposure to the necessary media. I agree with the notion that literacy comprises many media. I beleive that if our society developed ways to balance the different learning methods, more people would understand when to read a book, watch a movie, or when to listen to a recording to best learn. Basically this awareness would creat a more effective learing system.
The increase in visual communication is also an issue brought up in the essay. Eco suggests that there is a changing standard in our visual and verbal communications. There are countless acronyms and formulas to represent actions and ideas. So many things today are being shortened. There is a counter response to this where the more that is said, the more insightful it is believed to be. This is a problem because, frequently, shorter works of literature can imply more than hundreds of pages of literature. I believe that there is a mass media bias and older generations are hesitant to adapt to the changes in technology. Currently, though, memorization of material is becoming forced and obsolete and books are less and less used to further learning. At the same time, there are so many books publishes and only so much time to read them. Maybe this is where the different media would come in.
I would like to agree with his optimistic side-- that people will keep books around because they understand that there is just something special about them that you can't get from the computer. I definately agree and I know other people agree as well. Books just... smell... and they have character... Computer's don't do that like books do, but that is my personal bias. There is just something neat about sitting in a library, hunkered down surrounded by books, basking in their smelliness. At the same time, computers are so unbelievably convenient, it is hard to imagine that people will completely abolish the idea of reading texts online.
Eco responds to critics by stating that the future generation is not a generation of images, but rather a generation of computers. He argues that there is more text on a website than images. He also states that most people prefer reading text from a paper source than from a computer screen. I can agree with this since many things I have to read from an online source, I print out. Being a student, a great deal of this is for the benefit of being able to highlight and readily access the material, but I honestly do prefer to read it off of paper. Another point made by Eco was that there is actually a greater number of books in print today than in previous years, and there is an increasing number of literate individuals in the world today as well. The availability of photocopying presuades many to use this outlet instead of buying a book. Because many people do not enjoy reading the photocopies, many of these works lay around unread. I think that I fall in-between the optimistic and pessimistic sides on this issue. I personally do enjoy reading books, especially for recreation, but I understand that many others don't and they may be more willing to read a brief summary of it on the internet. I think the inaccuracy of a lot of the information on the internet will present itself as a problem if the computer becomes the main source of literature. It is however, a cheap alternative and gives many users quick, easy access. I also think that it might help some users to learn material more effectively, because of the variety of ways people learn. It could also encourage other forms of learning, such as listening to an audiocasette while driving. If I had to pick the pessimistic side, I would argue that its going to warrant a lot of eye problems in the future, from staring at screens. It's also going to greatly decrease the quality of material read by the public.
In this reading Eco definitely does not undermine the importance of books within our society. Eco knows that there are many other outlets of media that are considered faster, cheaper, and more accessible to the public but that in the end, books will still be a way to 'cement' writing in time. I did find it interesting though how he brought up the issue of books becoming so old that they are virtually unreadable because they 'turn to dust.' It's ironic, because for many even if they could open the book to read it, they wouldn't be able to understand the language that was used in that time period. Overall he believes that the popularity of books is on the decline for a number of reasons, but that they will stay around just for the mere fact that's it's difficult to read off of a computer screen. Some issues that he focuses on include the fact that people shorten everything now when they write. Introduction pages for books are shortened which is a negative to Eco. In this regard i disagree with him because i don't consider the introduction an important part of the book. There's a reason why a book is a book. Why read all that info that's going to be in the book when you could just read the book itself? After reading this i believe i fall more on the side of pessimism. Today's societies are moving so rapidly in the direction of technological advancement and i believe that books will not be able to keep up with the fast-paced lives that many will lead. Our generation will be used to reading off of the computer screen to the point where xerox copies won't be needed. it's all just a matter of time because it's all breeding. Besides, we'll save more trees this way....
Eco responds to critics like Sven Birkerts by disagreeing with them that the book will be made obsolete. He does not believe that printed books are on the out. Even in this high technology world we live in today, Eco believes people will always refer back to the printed text. He has this optimistic view of the future of literacy and I have the same. I agree that the internet for example is a great source but there's a lot of problems with that such as bad copies. You don't know the credibility some of these websites have. If I had to choose the pessimistic side then I would definitely be concered with what I said earlier. The credibility of say like an internet article is not always clear. I agree that there are good sources out there on the internet but why not go with the sure thing and read the printed text.
Eco says he is an optimist 12 hours a day and a pessimist the other 12. I think that is a familiar predicament for most intelligent people in relation to many things. It's rediculous to be optimistic all the time, but depressing to always thinking pessimistically. That being said, I am an optimist about 18 hours a day. In the situation he described, "a computer generation ... comes to feel dissatisfied and looks for a different form of reading". This is not at all a stretch for me, because in the world of email, facebook and all other distrations computers can provide, I still enjoy sitting down and reading a real book every once in a while. It's a different simpler pleasure that will take a long time to fade out completely. But it would be foolish to believe that we will always have books. Fads change, and books will become obsolete like milkmen and pogs.
Eco's response to critics who think the book will be made obsolete is to embrace things (different medias) that will improve literacy while questioning and investigating them.
I think that eventually, or overall, he thinks that books are becoming less and less yet hopes they will never completely die and go away. Books have left an impression of superiority on him and he has a bias towards them, which may be a good thing. I agree that physical copies of texts are easier to read for extended periods of time than electronic text. It also seems easier to trust that a physically real book has not been falsely altered or tampered with. I trust real books to always be the way the author or publisher intends, but with electronic texts over the internet I am sometimes unsure whether or not it is as authentic as a book and has not been changed by someone providing the link to the text.
I really don't think about the future of literacy much at all, but I would assume that I am mostly optimistic about it, but sometimes I have large doubts about my optimism. Sometimes I think that optimism is a false or unrealistic feeling. I think literacy will fluctuate like most everything does. It will get better and get worse and finally settle in a normal state and then fluctuate again.
If I had to pick the pessimistic side, the concerns I would have would be a reliance on movies and fictional endevours for facts that are not facts. Another problem may be engaging in watching news broadcasts and the reading of newspapers that have a negative or otherwise less than positive/truthful bias (the bias may come from wanting to protect). I believe that the problem does not lie with the completeness of literacy, but rather with troubles discerning between fact and fiction and confusion about what to believe because of too many differing viewpoints.
I do not think that literacy will ever get to a point where it has vanished. Books and other physically written forms are needed for organization of ideas and for a large portion of our communication. Eventually, I do think that real books will be less common than electronic texts for how we get most of our information.
I do not think that once people finish reading what on ther computer screen, that these same people would then go out and try to find the book or read other phsycial books. I think that using technology is extremely important as a means of fighting the chopping down of trees in order to print books. I believe that we do not need to shy away from books in order to read online texts. The classical works of Shakespeare and Edgar Allan Poe need to be read in there phsyical sense in order to go back into the time period that we would be reading about. I find myself open to reading text on the internet, however for those truly moving or important documents, I believe that there is nothing like having a hard copy infront of you. The experiences with the physical book being infront of you is something that no computer screen can ever account for and it is my hope that we will never move to a place where the online text is more standard than a printed copy.
What I acquired from the piece was that Eco thinks very one sided, like he gets this assumption that if people can read off of computers they will go and read books which is entirely false. I feel that Eco's ideas and thoughts and feelings are all are correct but in today's society kids in school are more technology driven rather than book driven because when reading off of the computer screen you maybe won't grasp the whole concept of what is presented to you.
Post a Comment