It's a matter of supply and demand: When supply is high, the price is low.
Imagine a young person coming to you and actually wanting to sell his writing to make actual money. Let's say, not fiction, even, but articles and essays. Okay, stop laughing, now.
I'm going to stick my neck out. I have no statistics on this, just the impression I get from reading articles and books: Fifty years ago one had a much better chance of actually selling a piece of writing for money than one has now. And the Internet has got to be part of the reason.
Nowadays, everybody writes. Blog posts, on-line articles--words, words, words everywhere. An ocean of words, all available for, more or less, free. A writer may hope to make contacts that way (odious neologism--"networking") or perhaps to advertise his knowledge and abilities in such a way as to lead, very indirectly, to a job in some niche field. But most of us just write on the Internet because we like to write, enjoy the interaction, and have something we think worth saying. It costs us (once we find a kindly-disposed person or company that owns the web space) only our time (which didn't used to be thought of as so "only"), and we don't expect anything in return but attention and interest.
What does this mean for the craft of words, other than the aforesaid fact that the price has been driven down? It also means that quality suffers. Blog posts are written quickly, much more quickly than most articles for paper publication. Fortunately, one can make small corrections later to a post, but large corrections are supposed to be indicated by an update. Readers have come to expect quantity and speed, bloggers have other vocations or day jobs that constitute their real lives, and there just isn't time to polish.
In a way, this is all rather sad. One could argue that blog posts are the verbal equivalent of cheap physical merchandise.
But you won't hear me condemning the blogosphere. Instead, this is what you'll hear me saying: While we enjoy the advantages of the blogosphere--the readily available information, the freedom of the exchange of ideas, the development of friendships with people we would otherwise not know, the outlet for frustrated writers with something important to say--we must keep hold of the other thing, too--paper-style writing with its much slower timetable and its much higher expectations. If we lose paper-quality publication, that loss will be irreparable, and the Internet will be in no small part responsible for that loss.
But here, too, the Internet can actually help. Literal physical publication is much more expensive than electronic publication. If we can bring together the low cost of electronic publication with the high editorial, content, and production values of paper publication, we will have preserved something that must be preserved from the older world. And then the Internet will have done something very good, even for the craft of writing.
The trick is motivating truly good writers to write for that venue. In that vein, then, let me recommend both to readers and to writers The Christendom Review, which strives for what I have been talking about--paper quality at Internet prices.
If the human world is going to change, as it will do whether we like it or not, one of the best responses on our part is to use what is new in creative ways to preserve the best of the old.
Comments (36)
There is an immense amount of "free" information, a surfeit of discourse and intelligence "out here" on the internet. The problem for an internet junkie addicted to political, philosophical, and even literary commentary and discussion, is finding the jewels in huge mountains of dross. Many blogs, I've discovered, seem infested by maniacs.
I hope it's not too oleaginous to say that WWWW is something of a gem - which is why I visit the place quite frequently.
Posted by Alex | February 16, 2011 9:28 AM
90% of everything is cruddy.
There are folks who have gone from doing stuff for free on the internet to being paid to do it-- a good example that comes to mind, although it's a video instead of writing, is ZoNation-- Alfonzo Rachel on PJTV, where he now is paid for his work and folks subscribe to watch.
Some bloggers go from free to paid, same as some fan fic writers go from fanfic to paid writing. (Like Una McCormack-- we were even on the same Cardassian fandom list when her first novel was picked up, it was so exciting! Last I knew, she was still writing fanfic on the side, too.)
There have been "newsletters" around for ages, charging just enough to print and ship the material-- I'm betting most of the early newspapers in the US barely covered expenses, for that matter. (Didn't B. Franklin have a newspaper as a 'kid'?) The big thing that blogs do is lower the entry cost even more, as well as lowering the cost of distribution. Same thing happens with "radioshows" for podcasting, although radio seems to be adapting a LOT better than newspaper and books.
(I can't remember the last time I bought a book from an author I didn't already know and enjoyed it-- and the last time I *bought* a new book from a new series was before Kit was born. Still shocks me, although I haven't slowed my reading much. With the same effort needed to find a decent book, I can find *really good* fan fic, and it doesn't cost me ten bucks a pop.)
Not really disagreeing with you, mostly pointing out that the point of filtering has been moved-- instead of the filtering being first "who has money to do this," (removes good and bad writing) then "who was able to get a publisher's attention," (mostly removes bad, but also removes good that's not to the taste of the reviewer or that wasn't thought profitable) and then "what books ended up near me" (more of the good stuff removed, especially if you have tastes that are 'unusual' to whoever is stocking the book shelves.)
Now the filtering is motivated to bother to write and publish online=> read and enjoyed by group that likes that sort of thing, limited by language, time and format=> recommended to others in that group or associated ones.
Posted by Foxfier | February 16, 2011 12:01 PM
I think an important key to high quality is being willing to take plenty of time to work things over. This willingness may be the author's, the editor's, or a combination, but a big question is what motivates it. If each piece, each issue, etc., takes money to produce and cannot be readily changed once produced, then there's a motivation to go over it carefully, multiple times, probably with multiple pairs of eyes, and to get it right. If the author gets paid only when it's done and done right, there's a motivation to get it right. If you have time to polish and are expected to do so, that helps. Unfortunately, a blog context means that most of these things aren't true. There's not the time, there aren't the multiple pairs of eyes, it "can always be fixed later," and there's no pay anyway.
Posted by Lydia | February 16, 2011 1:22 PM
If the key was multiple people going over a piece, and the person not being paid until the article was done right, then why are most newspaper articles flatly wrong and contain basic spelling and grammar errors?
Good heavens, my *cellphone* has spelling/homophone errors on it. (I'm honestly not sure
Posted by Foxfier | February 16, 2011 4:19 PM
Yes, everything has slid. Badly. And a lot of the blame for that must be laid at the feet of the education establishment, which frankly stinks. (The one person who shouldn't be educating a child is a person with an education degree.)
That's why I said (actually changed it) to "an important key." But only one. Obviously, if the people going over it aren't competent, it doesn't help for them to go over it. But let me put it this way: I _know for a fact_ that I write differently, and better, for non-blog venues, because I have the time to do so and hold myself to different standards. I have _months_ to write non-blog articles. At least months; sometimes closer to a year. It's not just a matter of the different protocols (informal writing is acceptable in a blog) but just of the time one is given and of what one wants the piece to look like when finished. I am capable of catching errors and of writing smoothly--fairly smoothly, anyway. When I blog, sometimes I miss them because I'm in too much of a hurry. And as for trying to have a beautiful flow in a blog post--well, if instinct doesn't do it the first time, it doesn't get done. There's just no time for that sort of thing.
The great thing about blogging is that it helps you get past writer's block. Now, when I write a real article--a professional article or something for TCR--I'm able to force myself to get started and to work steadily. That's good. But once one gets over that initial speedbump, the process is very different.
Posted by Lydia | February 16, 2011 4:36 PM
My concern lately is quite different: blogging distracts from writing letters to the editor. Those of us who have been blogging and commenting for years can bang out a quality 150-word letter in minutes, but I rarely take the time to do that.
If we must write cheaply, why not write for a broader audience?
Letters to the editor are the perfect way to spread a few ideas beyond one's usual haunts, especially if you make it into a Sunday edition.
It also infuriates all the right people to see unapologetic, competently written traditionalist sentiment published in the main organs of the community.
This letter (scroll down) provoked a shallow response from another letter writer. One of my "anti-fans" remembered it so intensely that he threw it back in my face in the Denver Post comments section a few weeks later, despite the fact I almost never post in the comments section anymore.
If I dedicated myself more, perhaps I could aim for the pages of the WashPost and the NYTimes as well as my suburban county newspaper. W4 is great, high-powered academic journals are great, but I need to reach my neighbors too.
If people are introduced to W4 issues elsewhere, they'll be more likely to become regular readers here too. Let's take advantage of people who still read Time and Newsweek on dead tree, while we still can.
Posted by Kevin J Jones | February 16, 2011 8:31 PM
Lydia,
Excellent!
One of the problems of the supply side of things is that it is far too easy to develop a perverse fascination with the train-wrecks all over the internet. People think their ideas are credible because they are publicly purveyed and they have folks reading them. It can take time to find worthwhile sites and determine whether or not they are worth *your* time, given your commitments.
On the other hand, I've found electronic networking to be a great boon. I'll refrain from indulging my penchant to name-drop, but I'd never have had the incredible opportunities to meet people, make new friends, get advice on writing and even catch up with old, old friends if it weren't for my presence on the internet.
I think Kevin makes a wonderful point as well (Lydia, if you didn't know, Kevin and I cross paths from time to time) - local print media is an excellent way to widen your audience.
Kamilla
Posted by Kamilla | February 16, 2011 9:18 PM
Letters to the editor are often butchered--sorry, 'edited with a heavy hand'--and every single one my mother has sent in were flatly altered to be opposite of what she wrote.
OTOH, write a good enough blog post and it will be picked up by other blogs, or by Rush, or the evening news.
Relative cost: letters to the editor require that you read the paper and buy stamps/ink/paper/envelope; a blog requires that you read or listen to whatever you want, or just live, and take the time to make an account and publish.
Posted by Foxfier | February 16, 2011 9:21 PM
Actually, Foxfier, I know our local newspaper accepts letters to the editor electronically. (And this is a small city, not a big city.) Then there's the dilemma: The editor writes and asks if you are willing to have your letter published on their on-line edition rather than in their paper edition. Or you could _wait_ to have it possibly included later in the paper edition. What to do? I've done each at different times. In any event, I didn't have to buy any paper, unless I wanted to read my own letter if it made it into the paper paper.
Kamilla, I agree about "networking." I think of it as making friends. And it does work. Friends made on the Internet can be real friends. It can't really be reproduced in any other medium. I'm all in favor of the blogosphere. I just want to write better sometimes, too, and I think it's important that I do so, and that quite a few of us do so.
Posted by Lydia | February 16, 2011 10:02 PM
Lydia, excellent post!
I started my personal weblog as a way to make myself write regularly even though I often don't have the time to do the serious writing I'd like to. It gives me enough audience (of people I care about) that I want to write well enough not to waste their time -- but I don't feel that it has to be "print-publishable" in quality (also because most of my readers know me and therefore I know they will give me some grace). That's been good for my sanity and has helped me explore ideas I'd like to write about more seriously.
But it's the serious hope-for-publication work that makes me a good writer, that reminds me of the seriousness of the endeavor of writing, of the need for reflection and time for real depth, and offers me the help and advice of editors who care about the work as much as I do. Ed Veith at World Magazine and David Mills at Touchstone have made me a better thinker, better writer, and better person with their challenges, advice, and affirmations.
I'm applying for a sabbatical for Spring 2010; I am so excited about the possibility of spending several months in concentrated reading, reflection, and writing -- what a gift that would be if it works out! We shall see . . .
Posted by Beth Impson | February 16, 2011 10:04 PM
Now that is encouraging-- a newspaper with a real, decent online presence!
Maybe some will survive after all.
Posted by Foxfier | February 16, 2011 10:47 PM
Networking? I actually like it. I mean, what's not to like a participle (or gerund) formed from a verbified noun, which is itself a compound of two nouns? It's not like this is a new abuse of the English language, or any language at that.
Posted by Patrick | February 17, 2011 4:54 AM
Normally I'm not one to put a lot of faith in technology, but the letter to the editor issue will eventually be solved by technology. It's only a matter of time before feed readers begin to support geocoding and sites make that information available. Eventually, it'll be possible for bloggers to identify themselves online in a machine-accessible way that makes them peers to the local rag.
Google Reader already has a lot of the infrastructure in place. Google also provides a pretty decent blog-only search system. Combine the two with a geocoding system in the RSS and Atom and then who needs to worry about their local opinion getting butchered?
Posted by Mike T | February 17, 2011 8:10 AM
Patrick, for what it's worth, the word itself is a neologism, and a neologism with a shallow, corporate sound. It's also ugly to the ear. In meaning, it obscures important distinctions between meeting people out of a genuine desire for friendship and meeting people in the hopes of getting something out of them. Notice that "making friends" has the same number of syllables but more natural stresses, includes no neologism, and is clearer in meaning.
Beth, thanks, yes, you understand!
Posted by Lydia | February 17, 2011 9:25 AM
Many blogs, I've discovered, seem infested by maniacs.
And chickens...
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 17, 2011 10:04 AM
Letters to the editor are often butchered--sorry, 'edited with a heavy hand'--and every single one my mother has sent in were flatly altered to be opposite of what she wrote.
Foxfier, that surprises me. I have not had that experience at all. I have gotten about 6 letters into the Washington Post over about 10 years but they never butchered any of mine. Slimmed down just a touch, yes. Actually, I noticed that they must have had a really thoughtful editor there a while back. On one occasion when the had an article attacking Cardinal O'Connor, I wrote in showing 3 ways in which the article was bad reporting. I wanted to point out 2 more ways, but it would have made my letter long, probably too long (experience indicates that if it won't fit on one page, they won't print it). But the editor picked out 2 _other_ letters that made the exact points I had not included in my letter. This could not have happened if the editor had not actually thought about how the letters had bearing on the article.
Interestingly, I used to get about 1 out of 3 of my letters to our diocesan newspaper published, but after a change in the executive level, the word seems to have gone out not to be so definitely and coherently conservative, and they can't hardly stand to publish anything of mine. Well, I am just guessing at the reason. Maybe there is a less unpleasant basis for the result, I don't know.
Posted by Tony | February 18, 2011 8:29 PM
Seems to me in blogging and accepting and interacting with comments we see shades of the classic disputations of the Scholastic era. Anselm pasted on Guanilo's "Lost Island" refutation to his "Ontological Argument" and distributed the whole thing. We'd probably never have heard of Guanilo otherwise. Plus ca change. And we had words, words, words everywhere before they were written down, and the fact that they are recorded now, almost accidentally in the case of blog comments, rather than dissipate may not change things all that much. You have to look at the purpose of a particular document or expression, and whether it has fulfilled it, before there is any hope of rating its quality.
Regardless of media, I've seen rushed and inelegant writing that was brilliant, elegant writing that was embarrassingly wrong-headed, and brilliantly clever writing so dazzlingly counterintuitive that it captivates for decades as a sacred cow before decent folks dare utter that it might be false. Nobody invoked Mcluhan, but maybe because the message really is the message. Who knew?
I'm not sure about comparing different genres such as blog posts and longer works, but I have a hard time thinking that the quality of writing is poorer generally speaking because of blogs. If one doesn't need the pay, one could spend a great deal more time on an article if one thought that time was the key to making it great. It is the professional's burden to meet the demands of others, not the amateur who has the opportunity to do it for the sheer love of it. Maybe few do this, but there would seem to be less obstacles.
Speaking of the professionals, a massive amount of books are written and journals filled with articles written not to be read at all--indeed very few will be--but rather to get published for the purpose of getting a job in academia. An astonishing amount of our GNP is devoted to this makework. Does that have an effect on the quality of writing? Surely so, but somehow the complaints about that aren't as vehement. Professional courtesy I suppose.
I'm not as worried about the quality of writing today--since very few should be writing at all--as much as I am about the quality of reading.
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2011 3:23 AM
Something rebels in me at the thought of digital history. A history that can be so carelessly, effortlessly cropped, stored, and recovered seems less worthwhile than one made from the great mystery and hope contained in a faded scrape of paper or the last edition of a newspaper: did he send the final letter to his girlfriend? Does she keep it in a box? Are there tear drops dried on it? Did the newspaper die a slow death or go out with a bang? Is the ink smeared on this copy because of champagne or tears?
In the electronic age, tears just seem less important. A history should be something worth crying for and dying for. A made history is like a baby in that regard. How many parents would be satisfied with a baby they could endlessly edit to get just the right smile or cute little nose? These parents have no courage or sense the importance of life. Real parents know that you suffer as hard as you can once upon a time and then take what you get. That is the challenge of life and the challenge of commitment, of a love worthy of the name.
The digital revolution is perfect for a world that knows not the value of permanence, of the importance of commitment, of a love worthy of the name. It is perfect for a world where people are manipulated with no regard for suffering, where inconvienience is a dirty word, and where babies are aborted with the thoughtlessness of pressing the delete key.
I've see history and it is made of liquids set in stone, full of blood, tears, sweat, and goo. Somehow, paper will hold these precious passings, but they dry up when converted to units and naughts. The Spirit danced over the water - he did not press ENTER.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 19, 2011 6:06 AM
MC -- absolutely brilliant!
Posted by Beth Impson | February 19, 2011 2:31 PM
Does paper capture these? Or are we just attached to our latest tool? This reminds me of Postman's introduction to Technopoly, where he recounts a story where King Thamus was presented with writing by the god of invention, who said writing was a gift to the Egyptians that would improve both their wisdom and memory. Thamus said:
“Those who acquire it [writing] will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of their own internal resources. What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory. And as for wisdom, your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality: they will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant. And because they are filled with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to society”.
Well neither did the Spirit write down what it was like to brood over the waters. :)
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2011 5:22 PM
MC, that's beautifully written and fascinating. I think in some ways that I can bring it down to earth if I say this:
My daughters enjoy sitting around looking at photo albums. They aren't nearly as likely to say, "Hey, Mom, can we browse through the photos on your computer?" Sure, when the photos are first downloaded from the camera, they all gather 'round to see how they turned out. But just sitting around on an afternoon browsing, no. And I worry about that. If my hard-drive crashes badly enough, the photos will be lost unless I've backed them up or uploaded them elsewhere. Which I have done for some (Facebook) but not for others.
Naturally an anti-pack-rat person, I haven't yet persuaded myself to have a bunch of them printed and to put them into photo albums. After all, one whole point of getting a digital camera was to have fewer paper photos and less clutter. But I wonder...The mystique, the comfortableness (of looking at them), and the permanence are not the same.
As the Chicken also implies, forging or tinkering in various ways is easier digitally than physically. This raises questions for demonstrating authenticity in many types of historical records.
In other words, I can appreciate that the Chicken has a point even if I translate it into prosaic language.
Posted by Lydia | February 19, 2011 5:39 PM
The digital revolution is perfect for a world that knows not the value of permanence, of the importance of commitment,
But there is nothing so permanent as an email that you sent in anger (or insanity) and want to retract, but has gone viral. It won't ever go back into the bottle.
Seriously, it remains true that if you want to send someone a condolence, you better do it in something physical rather than merely electronic. Although some portions of the newest generation probably want to send their wedding invites as e-vites, I am sure that there will be plenty who reject that as being too ephemeral. And I have the same experience with photo albums that Lydia has. I suspect that as we get even more capable of altering electronic photos, people may not even bother much to send around (as they do now) those great photos of this and that - animals, sunsets, snowscapes, etc, because the photos might not be even thought of as showing someTHING interesting, but someSKILL that is mildly skillful.
Posted by Tony | February 19, 2011 6:02 PM
Of course this is very true. The most unsettling form of communications are such things as blogging the status of terminal care. Conditions are sometimes communicated in an electronic forum made for the purpose. I've seen this once. I didn't want to join, or learn what I learned, but I didn't want to be seen as not joining. I just can't say how wrong it all felt.
Why people treat electronic communications so differently is beyond me. If someone suggested this to me, I'd simply say: "Would you send out postcards to strangers for such things? If not, why on earth would you send the electronic equivalent?" For those who don't know someone well enough to receive updates in person, I don't see how it helps either party to get such personal details this way. The problem wasn't that it was electronic, but that it was sent out impersonally for those too personally remote to take the time to express or receive it with proper dignity. Sending impersonally what is so personal is so undignifying, and why people think anything could ever change that is beyond me, though I know the psychology as well as anyone so I don't need to be reminded.
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2011 7:57 PM
Mark,
I disagree. On our souls are written down the broodings of the Spirit. Every universe is created ex nihilo and so is every soul. The only reason for either is that the Spirit brooded. Different broodings, perhaps (the jury is still out on how many thoughts God has), but just as the universe is the record of the Spirit's dancing on the waters, the same footprints can be found in each soul. One must conclude, then, that each soul is worth at least (at least!) as much as a universe.
I pity the youth of today. They are destroying their history by making time into something meaningless. They record hours and hours of banalities to post to YouTube without a thought of how this trivializes their souls. Honest musicians know - you get one shot at playing a note during a concert. There is no editing or doing over. You play it once, for keeps, for all times. Time is your witness. The youth of today will only know time as a conspirator in an endless postponement of caring. How does a poet know when he's chosen the right word? He knows because, just as he lifts pen from paper, time stops, if only for an instant. If the word is right, time will stop to witness it. The youth of today, the digital youth, cannot sense when time stops, so busy are they looking for the next thing. Salience is a dirty word.
History is precious because time passes. The best one can do is appreciate time, to hear it passing. Time will stop, if for an instant, in witness to truth, but woebetide the man who tries to make it silent by force. We bear the effects of time in our souls. Two kinds of people are desperate to silence time: the one who aborts a human being and the one who makes history trivial. I am afraid that both are afronts to man and God. There are spaces between the ones and zeros of a digital history; there are spaces between the beats of a heart. I hope the youth of today will learn to look for history, there, because that is where hope dwells.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 19, 2011 9:43 PM
What does this mean for the craft of words, other than the aforesaid fact that...
Why not "writing" instead of the longer (and pretentious) phrase "the craft of words"? And why pad the already egregious phrase "the fact that" with the awful adjective "aforesaid"?
Posted by Dave | February 20, 2011 3:22 AM
Why the aforesaid snarky short comment as opposed to engaging the substance of the post? Really fine contribution to the craft of words, Dave, and startlingly insightful. Give yourself a pat on the back before you bug off.
Posted by Bill Luse | February 20, 2011 7:02 AM
I'm quite willing to admit that the main post was a blog post, written rapidly. It might very well exhibit some of the faults I was deploring and no doubt could have been written better. "Other than the aforesaid fact that" is clunky. "The craft of words," on the other hand...Well, somebody who complains about that I suspect of having a tin ear or two, as well as a deep reservoir of pettiness.
More on Chicken's comment later.
Posted by Lydia | February 20, 2011 8:38 AM
Well I know Chicken has an ipad, so we'll see if he concurs, but my experience is that the reason people don't want to look at photo albums on "a computer" is because the traditional computer, even if a laptop, is a lean over desk-type activity where a photo album or book isn't. But an ipad is a sit it on your knee, lean back and watch, sit it on the coffee-table, pick it up and it is on and ready in a second (this is a big deal,) and is as comfortable to use as a photo album. Actually more IMHO. My experience with kids is that you have to fight them off with a stick for watching photos or anything on an ipad. I don't think it is print photos or albums that they prefer, but the portablity and tactile feel. The tool rather than the medium.
However, the permanence issue is very real. Photos are lost. And backup methods are cumbersome. I suspect it is an issue that will be solved for a fee in some massive data warehouse in the Carolinas some day soon. But we'll see.
Posted by Mark | February 21, 2011 10:10 PM
Chicken, I have no idea what you are disagreeing with, but I just caution you to be careful that your pity of the youth not be despair. It is among the more fashionable sins today, or so I hear
Posted by Mark | February 21, 2011 10:22 PM
I agree, but maybe there is a deeper . . . underlying reason.
Posted by Mark | February 21, 2011 10:24 PM
Sorry, I am so late responding:
Mark, I was disagreeing with your statement:
Well neither did the Spirit write down what it was like to brood over the waters
I claim the Spirit did.
As for the iPad - it was a present, not a choice (I'm a supporter of open software/Unix - yes, OS X is Unix compliant, but OSi, not so much). I use it because my laptop is about ten pounds heavier to carry. I am opposed to any digital medium for historical records and while most historians appreciate the portability of digitized documents, many of us (as well as being a scientist, I'm also a music historian and performer) feel that the infatuation will come back to haunt us in time. I have digital research data only fifteen years old that I can no longer read, but the photographs are perfectly usable.
It has been my observation that young people in this era do not, generally, process historical events with the same reverence as older generations and I suspect the constant bombardment of tv and other sendory stimuli are to blame. It is constant turnover without any real time to recognize the moment. Kids do not process digital photographs with the same reverence as physical ones, either. Men have gone to their deaths clutching photographs, but I have yet to see a man clutch a hard drive to his bosom.
As for despair, this post was more of a, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." post, a sighing moment. I have hope for the future, but as much as you want to remind me of the mission statement, the Blog title, still, is, What's Wrong with the World.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 24, 2011 3:04 PM
A hard drive? People don't carry hard drives, they carry ipods and smartphones. Soldiers carry digital devices with their family photos and movie clips. And I'd bet every last cent to my name that a good number of electronic bibles are on those ipods of soldiers overseas, just like many Christians use them on their smartphones here, and just like soldiers carried bibles in the CW.
Well in defense of our youth, I'd say that observations like this tell us more about the observer than the observed. Some persons have thought this of the previous generation since dirt, and you can be assured many thought this of you. If they still don't it would only be because people get more optimistic as they get older. Why? Well, because they get wiser.
I think Victor Davis Hanson is a model for how to view knowledge and wisdom. A classicist who sees it in all its richness, from the knowledge a farmer learns through his work to the knowledge one learns from reading ancients texts. There is a continuity, and a deep respect and appreciation. I doubt that you love history more than I, but if you aren't humbled by the knowledge of those who know very little history on a fairly regular basis then you aren't hanging out with the right people.
I love history, but only after giving up on it in high school and college. I detest history classes, and it took me a long time to realize learning history and taking history classes are two entirely different things. I thought I hated history, but I just hated history classes. And why did I think I needed to learn history in a class? Well, that is what we're taught, that real knowledge is imparted by certified experts in classes, and all else is suspect. Illich was right, compulsory eduction is a curse. He was considered "radical," but many are noticing aspects of the problem by this late date.
Posted by Mark | February 24, 2011 10:44 PM
Thumb drives are like CDs. I prefer LPs, thank you very much. Most musicians who make recordings do. Analog, forever : )
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 25, 2011 7:59 AM
The book, The Dumbest Generation, by Mark Berleiner, is a scathing look at the ignorance and ahistoricality of today's digital youth. I've been in a college atmosphere for a long time and I can tell the difference as can many of my co-workers. It is not true of all young people, obviously, but the lack of respect has filtered down even to common historical courtesies, like manners. The digital revolution is just one cause of the coursening of society, but it is a real one. The anonymity of posting, or rather the lack of perceived consequences, the drive to respond, the lack of manners or concern for grammar and spelling are unheard of, historically, in a people that have not been conquered. Youths modify norms, they don't abandon one after another within a generation, unless they are forced to conceed to a superior force, and even then, there are pangs of conscience. Many, today, have surrendered to sin. The reasons are both complex in scope and simple in design. The Modernist tendancy to substitute emotion for reason is likely near the root cause.
More, later, perhaps. The Gas Company is fiddling with the lines, today.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 25, 2011 8:21 AM
It isn't hard to tell.
Posted by Mark | February 25, 2011 4:04 PM
Brriinng....Low blow...five minutes in the penalty box :)
I have to go put on my orthopedic shoes and grab my cane, sonny... you be nice or I'll peck you with my false beak. Now, who are you, again...
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | February 25, 2011 5:02 PM