books: check 'em out.... or... you know... don't.
something i've been thinking about lately. . .
what's the big deal about books? why has our culture elevated books as a superior form of communication? why is it so imperative that we nurture a lifelong love of reading in our nation's youth? what is so terrible about not really liking to read books?
Iliteracy in the US and around the world is a problem. there is absolutely no question about that and therefore i won't bother to discuss it. people should be able to read. but why are so many people up in arms about this apparent problem of Aliteracy? Aliteracy, for those who aren't familiar with the term, is having the ability to read, but choosing not to. it seems to me that our culture demonizes Aliteracy and the people who 'suffer' from it. Aliterate people are looked down on as less cultured or deficient because their first instinct when they have some spare time is not to pick up a novel. for example, a textbook that i'm reading for one of my classes discusses the idea of SSR. sustained silent reading. the textbook suggests some ways to deal with 'those children who simply refuse to read.' it suggests just letting them 'sleep' and assumes that eventually, when they see how much all the other kids are enjoying it, they'll realize that they love reading too. what a crock of s*#t? first of all, why must we assume that a child who does not like to read is broken? or... tired for that matter? perhaps this child just likes to receive information in other forms and through other mediums. perhaps during SSR said child should be allowed to listen to music or read a comic book. i could be wrong about this, but isn't the purpose of reading to enrich our lives and teach us new things about new people and the world around us? why is it that we believe reading books is the only real way to accomplish this?
i type this diatribe as someone who could be thought of as [gasp] Aliterate. i've got the disease, people. don't come too close or you might catch it. when i have some spare time, my first instinct is almost never to pick up a book. in fact, my first instinct when i have some spare time is usually to [shudder] listen to my favorite rock music cd. shhh. don't tell the first lady.
now, don't get me wrong. i like books. i like novels and short stories and poems. i like reading. i like literature. i'm going to be an English teacher, for crying out loud. i think that all people have the ability to, at the very least, appreciate books and probably even enjoy reading them. but i also think that all people have the right to choose how they spend their time and how they receive information. and so i do not think literate people who choose not to read are stupid or ignorant or lame. perhaps instead of pouring resources into fighting Aliteracy, we ought to be striving to promote multiple literacies. if a kid likes to watch tv, let's teach him how to do it properly. certainly all forms of communication--written or otherwise--have the ability to enrich our lives and teach us new things.
what's the big deal about books? why has our culture elevated books as a superior form of communication? why is it so imperative that we nurture a lifelong love of reading in our nation's youth? what is so terrible about not really liking to read books?
Iliteracy in the US and around the world is a problem. there is absolutely no question about that and therefore i won't bother to discuss it. people should be able to read. but why are so many people up in arms about this apparent problem of Aliteracy? Aliteracy, for those who aren't familiar with the term, is having the ability to read, but choosing not to. it seems to me that our culture demonizes Aliteracy and the people who 'suffer' from it. Aliterate people are looked down on as less cultured or deficient because their first instinct when they have some spare time is not to pick up a novel. for example, a textbook that i'm reading for one of my classes discusses the idea of SSR. sustained silent reading. the textbook suggests some ways to deal with 'those children who simply refuse to read.' it suggests just letting them 'sleep' and assumes that eventually, when they see how much all the other kids are enjoying it, they'll realize that they love reading too. what a crock of s*#t? first of all, why must we assume that a child who does not like to read is broken? or... tired for that matter? perhaps this child just likes to receive information in other forms and through other mediums. perhaps during SSR said child should be allowed to listen to music or read a comic book. i could be wrong about this, but isn't the purpose of reading to enrich our lives and teach us new things about new people and the world around us? why is it that we believe reading books is the only real way to accomplish this?
i type this diatribe as someone who could be thought of as [gasp] Aliterate. i've got the disease, people. don't come too close or you might catch it. when i have some spare time, my first instinct is almost never to pick up a book. in fact, my first instinct when i have some spare time is usually to [shudder] listen to my favorite rock music cd. shhh. don't tell the first lady.
now, don't get me wrong. i like books. i like novels and short stories and poems. i like reading. i like literature. i'm going to be an English teacher, for crying out loud. i think that all people have the ability to, at the very least, appreciate books and probably even enjoy reading them. but i also think that all people have the right to choose how they spend their time and how they receive information. and so i do not think literate people who choose not to read are stupid or ignorant or lame. perhaps instead of pouring resources into fighting Aliteracy, we ought to be striving to promote multiple literacies. if a kid likes to watch tv, let's teach him how to do it properly. certainly all forms of communication--written or otherwise--have the ability to enrich our lives and teach us new things.
posted by sara at 9:23 AM
4 Comments:
An interesting comment, considering that this is a BLOG, essential a word-based medium.
While you might assume that I would be against everything you wrote from the get-go, I am not. I believe that a good life is one filled with a diversity of expirences: music, both classical and contemporary; visual art: sculpture, painting, movies, television; verbal arts: poems, fiction, biography, lectures, speeches, sermons.
And yet, by the logic of your post we should permit children to not participate in physical education because it is not thier "natural tendancy." Nor should we encourage shy children toward social interaction.
You may be correct that the educational system in our country has neglected the development of various "intellectual languages." But don't bash those of us who love reading, writing and all things booky in an attempt to discover and embrace your own style of expression and comprehension.
i'm not bashing it. and i didn't think you would "disagree." i have more respect for your openmindedness than that. of course i think reading books is great. but a good example of what i'm talking about is when we're all hanging out and we start talking about television shows and you roll your eyes or accuse us of wasting our time. certainly you wouldn't say the same thing if we were all talking about the latest books we read. that's the kind of subtle "demonization" i'm talking about. obviously i think that children and adults should be exposed to as many different forms of creative expression as possible. i think my point comes into play when a person has been properly exposed, given it a fair shot, and STILL chooses not to read. is that really so terrible? that's all i'm saying. :)
I think that you can choose whatever you want. I think that you are mature enough to watch whatever you see fit. I apologize if I "demonized" television and even if I do think most television is junk, I should always listen to perspectives that are different than my own. Let me clarify why I think reading is superior to watching T.V.
1. T.V. is tied up with advertising. I love that you can get T.V. on DVD or TiVO out commercials, but it takes effort to do so.
2. T.V. is more imaginatively passive than reading. I'm not saying that T.V. is entirely passive, but I believe T.V. requires less of us.
first of all, realize that the following observations are not directed AT you. they are simply my own thoughts on the issue at hand.
tv is tied to money. so are books. a tv show won't get on the air unless a network believes it will have an audience to sell to advertisers. but your book isn't likely to get published if the publishing company doesn't think it will sell any copies. so, if it is the actual advertisements that bother you, then reading definitely bypasses that. but both mediums are tied to the bottom line. tv perhaps MORE than books (meaning there are more independant publishing houses out there than independent tv stations) but hopefully that will start to change.
i think that one of the main reasons why tv requires less of us is because people don't know how to watch tv. it is possible to be just as active watching tv as reading. i think that part of that comes from talking about it. so... when we're hanging out on a friday night and we begin to discuss what happened on the last episode of desperate housewives, how is that really any different than discussing what happened in the latest installment of harry potter? well, it isn't. i don't think. both have characters and plots and conflict. both are stories. both are worth discussing. regarding the imagination piece. i think that... some children simply have wilder and more vivid imaginations than others. naturally. so some children won't feel any more engaged while reading a book than they would watching a movie... imagination-wise. that is not to say that imagination can't be cultivated. but that can happen in a variety of ways. words spark imagination for some. music for others. moving images can too. again, it's a matter of literacy of the medium.
i agree with you that... overall... there is much more junk on television than there is on the printed page. right now. but i don't think that is an inherent problem with the medium. it's just... the way things are. my hope is that they can change.
and... i'll say it again. i like books. i think there is a wealth of worthwhile stories out there that children SHOULD be reading. and that I should be reading too. i'm just not sure it's worthwhile anymore to believe that one way of communication is inherently better than another.
Post a Comment
<< Home