From the article:

What is the point of having a population that can read, but doesn't?

I love that! Having a written language is one of the things that marks us as an advanced society. Historicly it's an indication of a culture's advancement.

Oh brenda, that really feels like it's been ripped from our headlines, doesn't it? Aside from the obvious connections with the discussions here and in lightbulb, I am struck by the discussion of depression. From time to time I have wondered why so many people I know online (and this isn't peculiar to b.org, either) are being treated for depression. I am most accutely aware of this when I have been online too much (for me) and find myself at the very top of a downward spiral. I know the 'net has eaten up a lot of the time I used to spend reading (and doing) other things.

I was also struck by these two paragraphs:

The Nazis were right in believing that one of the most powerful weapons in a war of ideas is books. And for better or worse, the United States is now in such a war. Without books, we cannot succeed in our current struggle against absolutism and terrorism. The retreat from civic to virtual life is a retreat from engaged democracy, from the principles that we say we want to share with the rest of the world. You are what you read. If you read nothing, then your mind withers, and your ideals lose their vitality and sway.

So the crisis in reading is a crisis in national politics.

It is important to acknowledge that the falling-off of reading has to do not only with the incursion of anti-intellectualism, but also with a flawed intellectualism. The ascendancy of poststructuralism in the 1980's coincided with the beginning of the catastrophic downturn in reading; deconstructionism's suggestion that all text is equal in its meanings and the denigration of the canon led to the devaluation of literature. The role of literature is to illuminate, to strengthen, to explain why some aspect of life is moving or beautiful or terrible or sad or important or insignificant for people who might otherwise not understand so much or so well. Reading is experience, but it also enriches other experience.

I don't find myself in terrifically strong disagreement with either, but it was strange to read the two ideas, from the same writer, in succession. In the first paragraph quoted above, and the one (not quote) prior to it, Andrew Solomon cites the fascists burning books (and notes later that along the same theme, the Soviets repressed much literature), and puts forth that we cannot win a war against absolutism and terrorism without books.

In the second paragraph, his assertion is that the downturn in reading coincided with deconstructionalism, and states, "[D]econstructionism's suggestion that all text is equal in its meanings and the denigration of the canon led to the devaluation of literature."

The juxtoposition of these ideas just strikes me. Essentially he's saying these two things:

We can't beat absolutism without books.

Relativism (at least in lit. crit.) may be partly to blame for the downturn in reading.

So what? Relativism is destroying the tools with which we fight absolutism? Makes a girl a bit dizzy.

Add to that his claim that there is an anti-intellectualism, and I am getting silly. Again, my feeling is that most people (and no, I don't have a citation, but I really don't think a statement of the obvious needs one) who are not still in school, and who weren't lit majors, and/or who aren't academic at heart, have never been either pro-intellectualism or anti-intellectualism.

Intellectualism—as either topic or influence—hasn't eaten up more than an hour of most people's thoughts, I'd wager. For most people, it just isn't important (anti- or pro-). It just doesn't matter, unless you are engaged in it, or against it. People eat, and sleep, and have sex, and work to make money to ensure they have something to eat, and somewhere to eat, sleep and have sex. They watch TV, go to the movies, go to the beach, clean their gutters, and some engage in intellectualist (not intellectual) pursuits, but that's a choice. These days, when they can get jobs, they're working more hours (at least in U.S.) to keep those jobs.

I am more inclined to blame the downturn in reading, in the easy availability of entertainment in other forms, than on lit. crit., or intellectualism or anti-intellectualism, or absolutism, or relativism. Really, few non-academics pay much attention to lit. crit., so when lit. crit. is starting from a faulty premise, the non-academics don't know, don't care, aren't affected.

For the record, I am not putting forth that crit. is worthless, just that the average person who was reading 10 years ago and isn't now, never did give a damn about the canon, or crit., or deconstructionalism. People read for something to do, and there are a lot more things to do now, in some ways. Also? People read books to get a story. There are a lot more ways in which story can be obtained.

Still, I agree we lose when we do not read. I know for myself, parts of my brain are engaged by reading, that are seldom if ever touched by watching/listening (and I'm not speaking on a neurological level). I'd say they're never touched, but I'm not certain about that. Joss's work is what I have in mind. It makes my brain and belly buzz, the way a book does.

So what? Relativism is destroying the tools with which we fight absolutism? Makes a girl a bit dizzy.

Thank you Cindy. I read that piece last night, and the transition there bothered me, but I couldn't figure out exactly what my problem with it was. That's it exactly.

I don't have time to read the article right now, b/c I'm headed out the door, but I have the post bookmarked. On the subject of depression in that article, though, Andrew Solomon is the author of The Noonday Demon, a hugeass book about depression, including his own. (Which the article might say, making my know-it-all-ness redundant.) So, despite not having read the article yet, I'm not surprised that topic is touched on.

Having a written language is one of the things that marks us as an advanced society. Historicly it's an indication of a culture's advancement.

I haven't read the article yet, so just commenting on the snippet -- walking upright marks us as somewhat unique, and I'll be damned if you catch me doing that for fun. I do it when I need to, to enable the other things that are needed/fun. Other people actually like it, and I think they're weird.

Maybe reading's like that for others.

I am always very iffy when people equate technology with "advanced" culture. Like culture has any forward motion. (For this discussion, I will posit writing as a technology, since it requires invention and application in addition to tools.)

Is singing a song any less advanced, culturally-speaking, than recording the same song?

Is singing a song any less advanced, culturally-speaking, than recording the same song?

Yes, but it is probably not much more culturally advanced than performing a song. I allow for a little more advancement, because to me, the idea to hear something that has already been said (sung, played), and/or to allow someone to hear something you've already said—to keep and exact record, and elevate it beyond memory—seems somehow more advanced.

Actually, I take back that "not much more" or offer it more hesitantly, and I think the same is true for writing something down, as opposed to just speaking it. To give words the kind of import, such that they merit saving them seems a cultural advance. I don't know how I'd qualify it though, because I am way over my head in this discussion.

To give words the kind of import, such that they merit saving them seems a cultural advance.

Oral history saves too. To give words the kind of import, such that they merit remembering them.

And they've discovered that oral history is usually incredibly accurate and often the story remains the same for hundreds of years.

Ironicly, I'm a pretty bad writer. It takes me a good while to write anything more than a brief sentance for the board, which is why I've been lurking for awhile now.

I guess maybe what I was trying to say was that a society with written language can pass on more to the future even if those who wrote it are gone. I think oral tradition is facinating, but we don't know as much about ancient people who used it exclusivly. I'm reading a book about celtic spirituality, specificaly celtic christianity (awesome stuff), and according to the author we don't know many details of pre-christian celts and druids worship rituals because it was all done through oral tradition. Written language insures a society will have an impact in our world now, even though we are largely disconnected from our past.

(edited so it would make more sense sorta)