
Sigh. In response to Michael Skube's
excoriation of generation dot.com's poor vocabulary and reading habits, twenty-something David Andrukonis
attempts to defend himself and his generation.
To Skube's assertion that his students don't even know the meaning of the word "ramshackle," Andrukonis writes: "I didn’t know [what ramshackle means] either. But a few mouse clicks later, now I do." Apparently, Andrukonis assumes that it's fine not to know $10 words like "ramshackle" because he can Google them.
"Today’s young people don’t suffer from illiteracy;" he continues, "they just suffer from e-literacy. We can’t spell and we don’t know synonyms because there’s less need to know. What smart person would devote hours to learning words that can be accessed at the click of a button?"
And to Skube's assertion that young people use the word "novel" to describe any book, non-fiction and fiction alike, Andrukonis writes: "Skube implores today’s young people to reverse the wheel of time and start living as their parents did, buying hard-bound dictionaries and reading lots of novels. That’s a way of life I wouldn’t wish on anyone - except my parents."
I am 15 years older than David Andrukonis, yet I willingly admit to turning to Google in the way I used to open a dictionary. I am also a poor speller and frequently lean on spell check in the same way I used to have to look up words in a "20-pound decaying tome" and check on their spelling. However, I am not proud of my poor spelling skills; I do not defiantly flaunt my ignorance as Andrukonis does. To do so is kind of scary.
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about new media and how it influences the way people think and perceive the world, the way they gather and synthesize information. People like
Robert Scoble and
Jeff Jarvis are very excited about the possibilities inherent in a media that can combine video, text, audio and interactivity. And they're not wrong, I love it too! I think it's fun to watch people like
Ze Frank. But I'm increasingly scared that such stuff is going to weaken our culture's appreciation of good writing.
As we incorporate more media online, people are going to take the lazy route, watch the video instead of reading the longer story, download a 5 minute podcast instead of taking the time to understand an event in its context.
A book that belongs under the belt of a lot of these new media theorists (one they don't seem to have read) is
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. In it, Postman says that most forms of video communication are better suited to entertainment. He says that we tend not to learn anything from television news because, in medium and format, it is simply entertainment. The thing is, television news cloaks itself in credibility, but still tries to deliver complex stories in soundbites. In a presidential debate, for example, a candidate gets only about 2 minutes to express his views on an issue. What can be well-discussed in 2 minutes?
Online video programing is no different because it comes to you through your computer. Advocates will tell you that the web is different, not confined by the restrictions that hem in traditional media, but talk to kids like David Andrukonis and I'll bet you'll find attention spans even shorter than 2 minutes.
New Media, this is your audience, or at least your future audience.
This Web 2.0 stuff is just another way of entertaining ourselves, of passing the time by consuming content that doesn't challenge the consumer intellectually. "[I]f novel reading is down among college students," writes Andrukonis in all seriousness, "it’s only because they’re spending time on activities like Facebook."
To write about Web 2.0 as if it were a the New Enlightenment is to lack a healthy skepticism.
Nothing's in our culture is really changing because we're just turning today's web into tomorrow's television. Like TV, RSS, rivers of news, podcasts, online video, social networking, are all symptoms of what Kierkegaard called the Aesthetic Stage of human development, the stage in which human beings use all manner of distractions to keep ourselves from realizing that we are in despair. It is in this stage that we do anything to keep ourselves from having to dig deeply into our souls and realize that life, and all it contains, is essentially meaningless, and that we'd better do something about it before we die.
Personally, I'd like to do more with my life than watch a few hundred videos online.