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)

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

Oh, yes. Excellent point. The desires and attempts to preserve history (in any form) is the crucial leap, isn't it?

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

Oh, yes. Excellent point. The desires and attempts to preserve history (in any form) is the crucial leap, isn't it?

The only thing is that oral history is so fragile... in just one generation of imposed silence -- takeover and oppressive rule by another culture, genocide, even something like a catastrophic flood or earthquake that wipes out a region -- it can be gone, forever. Written history gets saved, squirreled away, copied, reprinted, sometimes entirely forgotten but still there, available for rediscovery.

I'm not saying that oral history isn't better for us -- but is it a sign of an advanced culture to want to represent itself verbally after its own death? Why? Is this more important than leaving buildings, or art?

A good pillaging genocide can wipe written records out too, or a flash flood if they're on papyrus or unfired clay. Or you could always burn the pages to stay warm.

I'm not saying that oral history isn't better for us -- but is it a sign of an advanced culture to want to represent itself verbally after its own death? Why?

I think it shows awareness on a few levels. First there's the self-awareness, that feeling that our lives are important enough (whether or not they actually are) to make note of. Then also, it seems to indicate an awareness that history contains lessons that are applicable to other lives, even if the lessons inherent are most applicable allegoricaly. There are tiers to that second level. Because I think to realize what has happened in the here and now might be important to people of the future involves a recognition that we have learned from the past, or realize that had we "known this" things could have been different or better. Apart from that, there are elements of caring--caring that someone knows we were here, but even more, caring that what we learned now, can someday help strangers.

Is this more important than leaving buildings, or art?

I don't know. I am more comfortable accepting that they're different from each other. What do you think?

Architecture serves an immediate purpose. It's shelter. At its most base level, the crucial elements of a building's design are matters of function. But at some point, when it meets all the physical needs it can, it drifts into the land of convenience. I see that drift as a cultural advance. There is recognition of an extra that's awful nice to have, and may free up some resource (time, money, whatever) such that I can devote it to whatever else.

At another level, design is also art. All of these elements (elements of function, of convenience (above basic function--I don't have the vocabulary for this, I think), and of art) are important. They just are each important to different parts of me. If my basic physical needs are not being met, convenience and pleasure aren't even an issue for me. But once they are met, the parts of me that need convenience and pleasure wake up, or something.

Art as a whole, to me, is an emotional record, if that makes any sense. On the part of the artist, it's the I-thought-of/I-saw/ I-want/I-love/I-hate/I-dream THIS. And I want people to know it, or at least, I need to tell it in this medium. On the part of the consumer, it involves a willingness to let something exert influence over us.

With regard to the Times article, and the discussion following, I thought I'd mention that our school district has instituted a mandatory summer reading program for ninth and tenth graders. To quote from the article in our local paper:

"'This is not an optional program,'" said district superintendent... "the summer reading program...will be a prerequisite for a diploma.

A multi-paragraph personal reaction paper must be completed for each work, which includes the likes of Julius Caesar, The Crucible, and Huckleberry Finn. Each student must read at least one or more works from the required list, and one or more works from the supplemental list.

'The overall rigor of this program is very impressive," the superintendent said, 'but not beyond any of our students.'"

It goes on to say that guided teacher instruction will be available during evening seminars at the high school library, and the local Barnes and Noble will provide "support" groups.

Is this a good idea? Maybe. I'm halfway convinced that kids should go to school year round, with longish breaks between quarters, anyway, and I've always made sure that my oldest son is reading in the summer. (This summer he's doing some math, too, due to his grades.) But...one or more books from two lists? Obviously, the requirement for the summer is two books, total, with kids who want to read more encouraged to do so. But how many will stick with just the two? (Which I know is better than nothing for some kids who wouldn't have picked up a book otherwise all summer.) And...support groups? As if summer reading were a new and dangerous disease? "I am Jack's overtaxed brain..."

This is all colored by the fact that I'm not wild about our district on a lot of levels, so maybe I'm being overly critical, but this also just seems sad to me. No one had to require me to read over the summer, or ever.

I joined a book group when we first moved to this town, and didn't stay long. My impression was there were two or three of us who read the books and were eager to discuss them, five or six who read the books without any joy or reflection (because if you're in a book club, you must the read the book, period), and the rest either never read or never finished the books and seemed to join solely for the dinner and the husband-less, kid-less night out. I can't tell you how many people I know who just never ever pick up a book, and always look at me kind of funny when I talk about reading. Yet, our Barnes and Noble is always packed. Either everyone's just flipping pages in the cafe to pass an hour, or some people are reading.

Ok, reading people...I just got an assload of mysteries because I'm trying to learn how they work, right? The hardboiled kind...Mosley, Paretsky, Grafton, Lehane. Pretty respectable stuff and still I felt like saying "I read real books, too." Is this creative writing class rearing its genre-bias again? ETA: I'm already jealous of Dennis Lehane. Not the crappy childhood, but the ferocious little style. I like it.

Some mysteries are officially Real Books now. It's complicated. Lehane may even qualify.