Scan barcode
A review by djinn_n_juice
The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age by Sven Birkerts
1.0
I probably shouldn't even talk about this book considering I didn't read the entire thing...what would VirJohn think? But, I will have the self-restraint to not give it a star rating. Instead, I'll just respond to it.
I've read a few of the most applicable chapters from this book, and have adapted it into a lit review, but I might be missing aspects of Birkerts' argument. However, this is what I've picked up from what I read: Birkerts isn't optimistic about what the internets are going to do to teh litrature! NOT TEH LITRATURE! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Because, you know, once writers can do stuff like randomly link to other texts in the middle of a piece of writing, and redirect you to other texts, the linearity, and to a certain extent, the control of the author is moved increasingly into the hands of the reader. The reading experience is, in Birkerts' opinion, less linear, less challenging (because you can change gears more quickly).
But yo. How many of us read everything straight through? When I'm about halfway through a book, I flip to the end and read the last sentence, and ponder how we'll get to that sentence from here, or what that sentence might reveal. When I'm reading anything academic...like Birkerts' book....I flip around in a self-serving fashion, not especially concerned with taking in everything homeboy says chronologically. THIS IS HOW PEOPLE READ: HOWEVER THEY FLIPPIN WANT TO. So, the distinction Birkerts and many other scholars are making seems entirely superfluous to me.
But, what do I know? I'm such a goddamned anarchist it's not funny. I say, teach the highschoolers Tupac and Snoop Dogg if it can teach them to think critically. Hell, teach them Angelic Upstarts and Cockney Rejects, too. As this website illustrates very clearly, you can think critically about crap, and you can think uncritically about Literature. So, I think of literature as a bit of a myth, generated for simplicity: certain things are worth reading, while others aren't. This makes things much easier for English majors, and it perpetuates the need to print books that are of a higher quality, but don't sell as many copies. Don't get me wrong: this is a good thing. But...where am I going with this. Okay, I was tangenting. Back on topic.
The idea that critical thinking comes from viewing certain forms of art and not others is a myth. Kat proves this with her reviews, as does Keely, as do many other people on goodreads. And, it's this same sort of mentality of valuing the familiar over the unfamiliar that perpetuates the myth that you only learn while reading that which is academically approved. Fuck the academy, and fuck anyone who thinks they can point out what really counts as "literature" and what doesn't.
So, yeah, fuck this Birkerts guy.
I've read a few of the most applicable chapters from this book, and have adapted it into a lit review, but I might be missing aspects of Birkerts' argument. However, this is what I've picked up from what I read: Birkerts isn't optimistic about what the internets are going to do to teh litrature! NOT TEH LITRATURE! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Because, you know, once writers can do stuff like randomly link to other texts in the middle of a piece of writing, and redirect you to other texts, the linearity, and to a certain extent, the control of the author is moved increasingly into the hands of the reader. The reading experience is, in Birkerts' opinion, less linear, less challenging (because you can change gears more quickly).
But yo. How many of us read everything straight through? When I'm about halfway through a book, I flip to the end and read the last sentence, and ponder how we'll get to that sentence from here, or what that sentence might reveal. When I'm reading anything academic...like Birkerts' book....I flip around in a self-serving fashion, not especially concerned with taking in everything homeboy says chronologically. THIS IS HOW PEOPLE READ: HOWEVER THEY FLIPPIN WANT TO. So, the distinction Birkerts and many other scholars are making seems entirely superfluous to me.
But, what do I know? I'm such a goddamned anarchist it's not funny. I say, teach the highschoolers Tupac and Snoop Dogg if it can teach them to think critically. Hell, teach them Angelic Upstarts and Cockney Rejects, too. As this website illustrates very clearly, you can think critically about crap, and you can think uncritically about Literature. So, I think of literature as a bit of a myth, generated for simplicity: certain things are worth reading, while others aren't. This makes things much easier for English majors, and it perpetuates the need to print books that are of a higher quality, but don't sell as many copies. Don't get me wrong: this is a good thing. But...where am I going with this. Okay, I was tangenting. Back on topic.
The idea that critical thinking comes from viewing certain forms of art and not others is a myth. Kat proves this with her reviews, as does Keely, as do many other people on goodreads. And, it's this same sort of mentality of valuing the familiar over the unfamiliar that perpetuates the myth that you only learn while reading that which is academically approved. Fuck the academy, and fuck anyone who thinks they can point out what really counts as "literature" and what doesn't.
So, yeah, fuck this Birkerts guy.