I read a lot of novels, probably >30 a year. I don't actually read them; I listen to them. I can do this because the nature of my work (for $$$) allows me to do so while I work. So I'm lucky. Were it not for audio books, I'd read just a few or even none.
Here, a newish medium (audio) helped literature-"reading" survive. But there's another newish medium that has, I think, really diminished literature-reading: video. The fact is people would rather watch than read, full stop. This is a strong and in-built (evolved) preference. Before the rise of video, "watching literature" was very hard to do because there wasn't much of it. Plays, and not many of those. Then movies, then TV, then (and especially) on-demand TV served up by the Internet. Now you can watch almost anything ever recorded any time you want. Why read a novel when you can watch a novel (so to speak)? And there is now a firehose of novels to watch. And all your friends are watching those novels. And they are talking about them, Should you spend your evenings reading a novel that nobody you know will read, or watching 5 seasons of "You" (just finished it) and gabbing about it with your friends?
Actually, "should" really has very little to do with it. These things (novels to be read) may be edifying, but they are still entertainment. And entertainment is all about what you *want* to do because it's, well, entertaining. Sure, you know you should read War and Peace. But you don't want to because there is a new season of "Downton Abbey" out. So you watch "Downton Abbey."
I don't know what all of this means, but it can't be good for the "humanities" insofar as the "humanities" is focused on reading.
Thanks for reading and for the comment. What seems to have happened to the novel is a whole other post. Like you, I listen to them all the time. And, yes, I agree that many people would rather watch a novel than read one. What I'm enthusiastic about is a group of people being excited about reading literature to the point where they spend their most valuable resource--time--to discuss it. It's the same thing that fuels people volunteering to record interviews for the NBN.
One problem is that the culture at large seems to have moved away from thinking there's a value in reading for its own sake--but the CP gives me hope. Some people question others' intrinsic motivation. And yes: if the humanities is focused on reading, there is more competition for students' attention every day.
An important article, that explains a few concepts I have been grappling with over the years. For a long time in college I was disappointed having not pursued the English major, but some courses just did not seem to click. There were professors who mentioned that classical literature criticism (looking solely at the work of art to derive meaning) was a theory that rose in the 1940s along with fascism.
Silver lining, Catherine Project has just received its largest student applicant pool with over 1000 entries. Personally I haven’t been placed yet, but Kristy has (Magic Mountain).
I read a lot of novels, probably >30 a year. I don't actually read them; I listen to them. I can do this because the nature of my work (for $$$) allows me to do so while I work. So I'm lucky. Were it not for audio books, I'd read just a few or even none.
Here, a newish medium (audio) helped literature-"reading" survive. But there's another newish medium that has, I think, really diminished literature-reading: video. The fact is people would rather watch than read, full stop. This is a strong and in-built (evolved) preference. Before the rise of video, "watching literature" was very hard to do because there wasn't much of it. Plays, and not many of those. Then movies, then TV, then (and especially) on-demand TV served up by the Internet. Now you can watch almost anything ever recorded any time you want. Why read a novel when you can watch a novel (so to speak)? And there is now a firehose of novels to watch. And all your friends are watching those novels. And they are talking about them, Should you spend your evenings reading a novel that nobody you know will read, or watching 5 seasons of "You" (just finished it) and gabbing about it with your friends?
Actually, "should" really has very little to do with it. These things (novels to be read) may be edifying, but they are still entertainment. And entertainment is all about what you *want* to do because it's, well, entertaining. Sure, you know you should read War and Peace. But you don't want to because there is a new season of "Downton Abbey" out. So you watch "Downton Abbey."
I don't know what all of this means, but it can't be good for the "humanities" insofar as the "humanities" is focused on reading.
Thanks for reading and for the comment. What seems to have happened to the novel is a whole other post. Like you, I listen to them all the time. And, yes, I agree that many people would rather watch a novel than read one. What I'm enthusiastic about is a group of people being excited about reading literature to the point where they spend their most valuable resource--time--to discuss it. It's the same thing that fuels people volunteering to record interviews for the NBN.
One problem is that the culture at large seems to have moved away from thinking there's a value in reading for its own sake--but the CP gives me hope. Some people question others' intrinsic motivation. And yes: if the humanities is focused on reading, there is more competition for students' attention every day.
An important article, that explains a few concepts I have been grappling with over the years. For a long time in college I was disappointed having not pursued the English major, but some courses just did not seem to click. There were professors who mentioned that classical literature criticism (looking solely at the work of art to derive meaning) was a theory that rose in the 1940s along with fascism.
Silver lining, Catherine Project has just received its largest student applicant pool with over 1000 entries. Personally I haven’t been placed yet, but Kristy has (Magic Mountain).
Outstanding!