Blog post #6: Baron Ch. 7-12

The chapter in the latter half of this book that I found the most interesting was the one about blogs, appropriately titles Everyone's an Author. The first thing I thought was interesting was that the author pointed out that reading has always been valued over writing. There are cultural reasons for this. Reading has come to be viewed as something that's "edifying and mind-expanding", while "governments, religious groups, businesses, and schools regard writing as something that must be channeled, censored, even licensed, so that reading materials are appropriately shaped..."

However with the digital explosion, specifically that of the web log, or blog, anyone can be an author. This touches on a subject that was briefly discussed during the book panels on Tuesday. When we were asked about the difference between something professional and something being amateur, then further asking what we think may be blurring the lines between the two nowadays. The first thing that popped into my head was access. With all of the advancements in technology, more people are able to voice their opinions than ever before. These days, people can bypass all of the formalities authors once had to perform in order to get published. These range from diary-like posts about the author's personal/daily life, to specialty blogs, to blogs where people rant about x,y & z. This is where people can run into trouble. There are many cases in which people are let go from their jobs or suspended/expelled from school because of things they have said in their blog. This even can even apply to one's personal blog. Especially if it can be "viewed as insulting, disruptive, bad for morale, or - worst of all, in the boss's eyes - useful to economic competitors." Because of this, a lot of large corporations have established rules/etiquette for their employees that have blogs.

A part I found extremely interesting an example where a local politician felt he was being defamed by an anonymous blogger, but Delaware Chief Justice Myron Steele did not find it to be so simply because of the nature of blogs. He basically said that it's "because blogs are interactive forums for the expression of opinion, not fact." Also, he mentioned that mistakes on blogs are immediately correctable, so if this politician really wanted to set the record straight, it was very do-able.

That leads me into another point that I found to be very interesting that somewhat conflicts with Steele's view of blogs. The book states that: "86 percent of blog readers consider blogs useful sources of information. In contrast, conventional news sources actually flunked  the information test: 82 percent of those surveyed found TV news worthless or only somewhat useful for news or opinion, and slightly more than half said the same about newspapers and magazines." I can't help but wonder what is responsible for this difference in views. Perhaps it's generational? Maybe people who have more or less grown up with computers feel that there is more variety on the web, as opposed to conventional news sources which they may view as biased.

Blog post #5: Baron Ch. 1,3 & 5

These three chapters mainly discussed the evolution of writing technologies. Before getting into any of that though, the initial opposition to writing itself was also discussed. The first page of the first chapter actually reiterates things we learned when reading Orality and Literacy. In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates warns Phaedrus that writing will cause people to rely less on their memory and become too dependent on writing. He also argued that because of the static nature of written text, there can be no argument about it's content, making it defective and trustworthy. While there is some merit to these arguments, writing of course won out eventually. It was once met with distrust, given how valuable spoken word was in society. But eventually, people came to trust it more especially for their use in official documents.

Although the shift from speech to writing is a technological advancement in and of itself, the advancement didn't stop there. Initially, people wrote on clay tablets that took quite a bit of effort to prepare, write on and preserve. This was eventually abandoned for dried animal skins or papyrus, which were painted upon rather than carved into. This eventually brought about pens, then pencils. In fact, chapter 3 goes very in-depth about how pencils are often overlooked as a technology. Many wouldn't guess that the pencil and it's eraser counterpart were actually met with a lot of opposition. Many teachers used to believe that students should think before they write and be held accountable for their mistakes meaning that crossing out or erasing were prohibited. Obviously, this technology won out as well. Something that is so commonplace in our society and is actually viewed as somewhat antiquated compared to our current means of producing text is not something that we would think could ever be considered controversial in any way, but it just goes to show that there will always be a portion of the population that wants to keep things the way they are and subscribes to the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". I think another factor that plays into that is the learning curve that often accompanies new technologies. People often don't want to put in that much effort initially, or might not even see the use of this new technology. But given a little time, the tables often turn and those same people find themselves dependent on the technology that they initially opposed, which can be seen with other advancements that followed the pencil such as the typewriter, telephone and eventually the computers we now use on a daily basis.

Blog Post #4: Achebe pt.2

When I read the blog post Hot and Cool Media by Marshall McLuhan, I tried to apply the terms covered in it in terms of Things Fall Apart.

The term 'hot medium' refers to something that "Gives a lot of information and gives little to do" while a 'cool medium' is something that "Gives a little information and makes the user work to fill in what is missing." The article states that  the amount of information involved is not in the facts and knowledge we're getting but "how our physical senses respond to, or participate in, media." It goes on to give a list of different types of media and what category they fall under. Mcluhan states that radio, print, photographs, paintings, movies and lectures are hot, while telephone, speech, cartoons, mosaics, television and seminars are cool. I think that generally, these categorizations are often correct, but I don't think that they're the be-all end-all/set in stone. I think there are always exceptions.

When I think of the content in Things Fall Apart, I'm not inclined to immediately lump it into the category of hot media. I would likely do that with a book like Orality and  Literature, because it reads more like a textbook. It is giving the reader direct information/terminology regarding oral and literate culture. But with Things Fall Apart, the reader has to look below the surface for these kinds of lessons. For example, the book doesn't explicitly say "The role women and men play in this society is vastly different." Rather, the book shows it by outlining parts of the characters' daily routines, like each wife making Onkonkwe a separate meal for dinner, or discussing scenarios where his wives are clearly scared of him and acting very subservient. Or instead of saying "language and a mastery of speech is important in this culture", the book shows it by it's constant use in ceremonies or important exchanges between people.

Blog post #3: Achebe Pt. 1

When reading Things Fall Apart, I tried to keep in mind some of the things that I read in Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong and draw some parallels. 

One thing that I noticed throughout the whole book was the way the footnotes explained the meaning behind people’s names. In western/literate culture (atleast in my experience) I don’t think the same type of meaning/emphasis is put on names. For example, in Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo’s second wife Ekwefi had lost 9 out of the 10 children she bore. When it happened a few times, it started to have an effect on what she named her children; One was Onwumbiko meaning ‘Death, I implore you’, the next was Ozoemena meaning ‘May it not happen again’, after losing another 2, she was resentful and named the next one Onwuma meaning ‘Death may please himself’. These examples show that in their oral culture, a name, something that is solely verbalized, parents choose a name that reflects something in life they want for their children.

Another thing I noticed was an example straight out of Orality and Culture. When the trial is held regarding the husband who beat his wife, causing her brothers to beat him up and take his wife and children away, the evidence is weighed solely on the testimonials of witnesses before the 9 spirits make their decision. There are no documents involved.

A major trait of oral culture that was demonstrated time and again in Things Fall apart was when there were important events, there were no documents or notices sent out. Instead, important events were signified by drums. Also natural events indicated when people were to do certain things. If you were supposed to meet someone at a specific time, you would know the time by the sun’s position in the sky since there is no written unit of time. The same went for farming. People knew when to harvest etc. by the rain/sun patterns.

Stories and proverbs also play an important role in oral culture. They’re not just told for entertainment purposes, but to teach lessons about life. A good example was when Ekwefi told Ezinma the story about the tortoise and the birds. One lesson I took from it was that being well-versed is a valuable skill to have. The tortoise’s way with words was reflective of a valuable trait in their culture. However, it also goes to show that no bad deed goes unpunished. He used his cunning to trick the birds out of their food, and for that, he plummeted to the earth and shattered his shell. 

Blog Post #2: Orality and Literacy Pt. 2

For the second half of the book Orality and Literacy, I am going to focus on why some people were critical of writing when it started to make an appearance in society.

A major criticism of writing which was surprisingly held by Plato, was that it destroys memory. He claimed that if people began to use writing, they would begin to rely on it and become forgetful. A modern-day parallel that can be drawn to this is people’s criticism of children using calculators rather than learning how to do basic math mentally. Another criticism of writing is that it is unable to defend itself like one can defend their opinions when engaging in back and forth speech. Because of this, writing has been viewed as “passive” or “unnatural” or “artificial”, which are also common critiques that some modern-day people have of computers. 

I definitely have an easier time understanding the first criticism I mentioned. When cultures were centered around orality, I imagine that people’s capacity of memory was much larger, because they simply had no other choice but to remember it if they wished to possess/utilize that knowledge. I think the comparison to children using calculators is a good analogy. I specifically remember being in third grade and my teacher really emphasizing the importance of memorizing our multiplication tables. I feel that being able to do simple equations mentally rather than having to pull out a calculator every time is much more efficient and just makes more sense. However, I only agree with this argument to a certain extent. I think that there is only a certain amount of information we can hold in our heads, and that there is obviously too much information in the world to be able to know all of it. Even if we were to pick one subject and devote our lives to it, there is a small likelihood that we would be able to call upon any given piece of that information at any given time just from our memories. Of course I’m not saying that if one is truly passionate about a certain subject, they shouldn’t try to become as versed in it as possible, but I do believe that writing/documentation of knowledge was supplemental to our previously oral culture and helps to fill the void between all that we know, and the rest of the available information. The ironic part of this argument coming from Plato is that he put these objections of his into writing. A really valid point that the book brings up is that “Writing print and computer are all ways of technologizing the word. Once the word is technologized, there is no effective way to criticize what technology has done with it without the aid of the highest technology available.”

As for the second criticism, where writing is viewed as artificial in the negative sense of the word (Corinthians 3:6 went as far as to associate it with death), the book points out what a paradox that statement actually is. I never would have thought to phrase it this way, but it makes perfect sense to me: “The paradox lies in the fact that the deadness of the text, it’s removal from the living human lifeworld, its rigid visual fixity, assures its endurance and its potential for being resurrected into limitless living contexts by a potentially infinite number of living readers.” Because of it’s ‘deadness’, writing has a much farther reach than any single person, both in terms of actual distance and in terms of time. If one piece of knowledge were to be passed down generation after generation orally, but then at one point someone decided to stop passing it on, it would be lost. However, someone could include that piece of information in a book for example, and 100 years later on the other side of the world, someone could pick that book up, see that information, and it would remain alive.

My previous paragraph dealt with writing’s supposed artificiality from the viewpoint that it is beneficial in terms of how efficiently it preserves and spreads important information. This paragraph objects to that criticism in respect to how writing affects us on a more personal/spiritual level. Artificial does not necessarily have to be a bad thing; All technology is artificial. Although one may not initially think of it this way, writing is indeed a technology. There is no denying that in many cases, technology has benefitted humankind. An analogy the book uses to prove this point is playing a musical instrument. Instruments are essentially tools. Learning to operate these tools means following a specific set of instructions. The result of this (music) is a form of self-expression that is inarguably human and could not be achieved without the use of said tool. The ability to operate this tool in such a way requires extensive practice. “Such shaping of a tool to oneself, learning a technological skill, is hardly dehumanizing.” I believe that a parallel can be drawn from this to writing. 

Blog post #1: Orality and Literacy Pt. 1

This reading really opened up my eyes to the contrast between orality and literacy. (I suppose that’s why the book is titled Orality and Literacy). Of course, the farther you get into the book, the more sense it makes. But as someone who was raised in this day and age in America, which 99% of the time means being raised to be very literate, this disconnect is not something one thinks of very often. Actually, the fact that orality was once the primary means of exchanging ideas and information is not something we think about often either. When in fact, humans actually became literate very late in their history. According to the book, “Homo sapiens has been in existence for between 30,000 and 50,000 years. The earliest script dates from only 6,000 years ago.” We are so literate in fact, that it’s difficult for us to even think of an orally-based society without thinking of it as some kind of variation of the literate society we live in today. 

A really interesting point that was brought up in the reading is the way in which writing and study are related. For this reason, oral creations have tended to be considered below scholarly attention. As a student myself, I have to admit this is does hold some truth. When I think of studying, I think of familiarizing myself with the contents of some kind of book or reading. Although there are a lot of different learning styles out there, and some are catered to by assigning videos to watch as homework, or going out and completing some kind of activity, I have to say that writing has still really held that position because it gives us the ability to analyze and examine information and stated truths. An interesting counter-argument brought up in the reading is the fact that not all learning has to be done by studying in the way that we know it to be. People in primary oral cultures (which means a culture that has been completely untouched by writing) learn by apprenticeship (learning skills hands-on) and discipleship (listening and repeating what they hear, mastering proverbs etc.). The reading refers to written words as “residue”. Oral tradition has nothing like this. The only way in which an oral story can be kept alive is by people continuing to tell it.

A conclusion I came to was that oral culture seems like it has been a little displaced, or put on the back burner if you will. Something that makes me think this is the fact that the term “literature” essentially means writing in Latin. This term as we know, covers a wide array of written materials. But there is no comparable term for the wide array of oral productions that are and have been in existance. There have been a few attempts to establish such a term. One is “oral literature” (which the author is not shy to express disdain over). It just really shows that people struggle with thinking of verbal materials except as some variation of writing, even though they have no relation to writing whatsoever. It almost seems like working backwards from a term you already know; As if to say, “it’s like literature, except it’s spoken”.  Another term is “epos” which is basically equivalent to “voice” in English. However, the typical meaning for epos has already been somewhat confined to epic poetry, so it would be difficult to try to make it an all-encompassing term that would refer to all oral creations. In my opinion, it still seems more fitting than oral literature.

While it is easy to begin to think negatively of literature, when coming to the new realization that as it’s almost completely replaced oral culture, it’s benefits cannot be ignored. It has helped to make great strides in many different areas (science, history, philosophy, etc.) as well as documenting that progress. I do think that oral culture could have a larger place in society once again if a real effort was made to accomplish that.