Forum Temperature: Future of literature?

[AngusBenton]

With the US at the helm, is the world becoming a less and less literate place?

With the advent of extensive media options clamouring for attention: 600+ channels, millions of websites, on-demand video service, DVR/TiVo, PSP, mobile video applications, gaming and thousands of niche magazines...are we more distracted than ever?

Writers focussing on literary fiction must take on additional jobs from teaching at University and writing magazine pieces to survive, much less prosper.

Will the future DeLilos and Barthelmes turn to some other new media to craft thier vision versus the 300-800 page novel?

Of course I hope not. What are your thoughts/

 

[ions]

At the helm of what?

You don't like the content coming from the US? Look somewhere else. I don't like much of it so I don't pay attention to much of it.

 

[novella]

The US is not at the helm of anything. But the English language is still in ascendance.

Worldwide media literacy is empowering people all over the place, politically and personally. Being able to receive, sift, interpret, and use information is the most important skill set anyone can have these days. Sometimes that information is pictorial, sometimes it's verbal. Sorting the good from the bad requires critical thinking and careful observation.

The written word is more important and powerful than ever. Just because it doesn't always come in the form of literary fiction doesn't mean it isn't out there. Between blogs and other forms of internet publishing, satellite comms, and massive data transfer, people from even the most isolated, poor countries are able to share world-changing scientific, technical, political, and cultural information.

Just because there are more forms of communication around doesn't mean you can't focus your mind on a decent idea or goal.

 

[Wabbit]

I wouldn't really agree with you that the English language is in ascendance. English is the third most spoken language in the world after Chinese and Spanish.

China ( and India ) are regarded by many expects to become the next superpowers. Their vast populations continue to grow. America itself is becoming a dual language country with Spanish almost everywhere.

 

[novella]

I wouldn't really agree with you that the English language is in ascendance. English is the third most spoken language in the world after Chinese and Spanish.

China ( and India ) are regarded by many expects to become the next superpowers. Their vast populations continue to grow. America itself is becoming a dual language country with Spanish almost everywhere.

With reference to the internet, television, and other worldwide media, English is the dominant language by far. It's also the most common second language learned in non-English-speaking countries.

And I agree completely that China is coming to the fore economically and politically. India, I think, is less well positioned economically, as far as manufacturing, trading of goods, and trained industrial workforce. Though they do speak English in India, which accounts for it's dominance in telecomms-based service sectors.

 

[AngusBenton]

You guys are missing my point. If you don't think US culture pervades the majority of mass media communication, you're fooling yourself. Also: it is virtually impossible to ignore unless you live in a remote area or are in academia, or are over 60 years old.

 

[Wabbit]

With reference to the internet, television, and other worldwide media, English is the dominant language by far. It's also the most common second language learned in non-English-speaking countries.

I don't think that's correct. Both China and India have a larger movie industry than the English language countries.

 

[novella]

You guys are missing my point. If you don't think US culture pervades the majority of mass media communication, you're fooling yourself. Also: it is virtually impossible to ignore unless you live in a remote area or are in academia, or are over 60 years old.

I'm not missing the point at all. I just disagree. I don't think the prevalence of US mass media has a negative impact on worldwide literacy. See previous post. There are many more simultaneous advantages than disadvantages to these technologies.

 

[novella]

I don't think that's correct. Both China and India have a larger movie industry than the English language countries.

that's true if you just look at the number of movies produced, but usually an industry is measured in terms of the amount of capital it controls. Hollywood makes and spends much more than either India or China by far.

As for English as the internet language of choice:

According to the most recent statistics (Nov 2001) from the United
States Internet Council, there are 225 million English speakers on the
internet, which comprises 45% of the Internet population. However, GlobalReach (http://www.glreach.com) offers a global internet
statistics webpage by language. According to that page, 40%, or 228
million people on the internet speak english. The size of the next
largest language group is Chinese, at 9.8% and 55.5 million.

 

[ions]

You guys are missing my point. If you don't think US culture pervades the majority of mass media communication, you're fooling yourself. Also: it is virtually impossible to ignore unless you live in a remote area or are in academia, or are over 60 years old.

Seems to me that's where you're focusing and therefore what you see. What effort have you made to see media from other countries? Read translated books, watch movies with subtitles from other lands?

Most of the TV I watch is Canadian. Most of the music I listen that's new is Canadian, what isn't is mostly from Europe. So far this year I've read 2 Russians, a Canadian, an Englishman and ONE American. This American pervasiveness you speak of doesn't exist in my world.

 

[Wabbit]

that's true if you just look at the number of movies produced, but usually an industry is measured in terms of the amount of capital it controls. Hollywood makes and spends much more than either India or China by far.

As for English as the internet language of choice:

According to the most recent statistics (Nov 2001) from the United
States Internet Council, there are 225 million English speakers on the
internet, which comprises 45% of the Internet population. However, GlobalReach (http://www.glreach.com) offers a global internet
statistics webpage by language. According to that page, 40%, or 228
million people on the internet speak english. The size of the next
largest language group is Chinese, at 9.8% and 55.5 million.

I don't know where you get your statistics but the ones I have read say that China has out paced the English speaking web sites. However, you can prove anything you like with statistics.

You have to remember that China is growing and FAST. It has the fastest growing economy in the world. Villages grow into cities in the blink of an eye. China only recently really got online and much of it is stil rural. However this is something that is changing very quickly.

 

[mehastings]

With the US at the helm, is the world becoming a less and less literate place?

With the advent of extensive media options clamouring for attention: 600+ channels, millions of websites, on-demand video service, DVR/TiVo, PSP, mobile video applications, gaming and thousands of niche magazines...are we more distracted than ever?

Writers focussing on literary fiction must take on additional jobs from teaching at University and writing magazine pieces to survive, much less prosper.

Will the future DeLilos and Barthelmes turn to some other new media to craft thier vision versus the 300-800 page novel?

Of course I hope not. What are your thoughts/

I'm going to stay away from the "who is at the helm discussion". Yes, I think the world is a less literate place. Who needs to read when you can watch TV, catch a movie, or browse the web and play video games endlessly?

Very few of my friend and co-workers are readers. In fact the only people I know who read as much as I do are my mom and my Aunt Lanie, both women over 50. I have friends who are in school for various different things. I've had the opportunity to read some of their writing, and it is often horrifying. I have to restrain myself from taking the red pen to their already graded papers.

I went to Barnes & Noble the other day because I couldn't just drive by. I didn't have much to do, so I just walked around. I was shocked at how many cars were there at 730PM on a Sunday. When I got inside I figured out why. There were about ten people working there, a dozen or so chilling out in the cafe (only one of them even had a book in front of them), another ten to fifteen people were browsing in the music/DVD section and there were maybe ten people scattered throughout the book aisles (primarily in romance and self help) and the seating area. Out of about 50 people in a large bookstore only a fifth of them were even there looking for books, few were looking at what I would consider "literary fiction"! The rest seemed to be looking for a movie or sucking in the AC as it was the only store around that was still open. It just made me sad.

 

[RitalinKid]

Could it be that the media dumbs down the content of its broadcasts and narrows the scopes of its topics for the less literate of the public, possibly dragging the rest of the public down? If you make a broadcast that is over people's heads, a large percentage of the population will not watch your broadcast. The bottom line is that you lose viewers, and in the end, that means lost profits. So, you won't hear broadcasts that delve into social theory or deep mathematical and statistical interpretations of results. Instead, you'll hear whatever is easiest to understand even though it may be misleading or just plain wrong. That being said, mass media will always be lean on intellectual content. If the US appears to be "at the helm," it's only because the US was a key player in the communications boom from telegraphs to communications satellites.

Going off subject, I'll add a caveat to Novella's observations about China. Yes, it is growing. Yes, it is manufacturing more, but it is a ticking bomb. China is strapped for places to put people. It's environment is a complete wreck due to erosion (not to mention the danger to people from the flooding erosion causes) and pollution, and on top of that, the Chinese are actually being paid to dispose of other country's garbage. That's right. With a booming population comes a booming pollution, and the Chinese government is actually adding other country's waste to their own. I believe the leaders of China may have their collective eye focused too hard on economic gains, with the future of their country at risk. China is building up as a major economic player, but with a Taoist twist, the country could be a major economic drain before this century is out.

 

[Usagi]

I think everyone is missing one major point...that the world is getting LAZIER! For example...Kentucky Fried Chicken...DUMBED down to KFC, McDonald's, dumbed down to McD's, and because of this, people are reading less and less because it takes time. Like mehastings said, why read when you can watch tv or a movie.

People these days do not have the attention span to concentrate on a novel. They focus on a show that is 20 mins (minus the commercials) and that is mostly what their attention span can handle. It is like watching football or basketball, where the play usually runs for about 30 seconds. So because of this lack of attention and laziness, novels are becoming less and less read. I know only a few people who actually ENJOY reading. It's sad really.

 

[novella]

Just want to point out that abbreviated Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC was a calculated corporate decision to move away from the image of Col Sanders, traditional Southern culture, and chicken-only menus. It was much discussed in the ad rags at the time and was official policy designed to broaden the brand, not a dumbing down due to people's laziness.

 

[Motokid]

I would question exactly when was the worlds population all that much smarter?

100 years ago was everybody reading great literature? I don't think so. There's more access to more forms of media today, which to me means people are in general going to be smarter. Some kid in rural Kansas with a computer and internet can scan the world. 50 or 100 years ago the access this same child might have to anything other than a radio might have been a one room school house with a next-to-non-existant library. The kid would have been working the fields as soon as physically able, and might never have learned to read inthe first place.

If the world is dumbing down, why has mankind advanced more in the last century than ever before in the existance of all earthly life?

 

[clueless]

I agree that people reads less now but I don't think that affects literary fiction. People who'd rather watch a reality show on TV than reading would not read literary fiction anyway. There are probably more people reading literary fiction now than ever before.

About writers having to have a job. That was always the case until the second half of the XX century. Writers always had another job, mainly as academics or journalists, unless they came from a wealthy background.

 

[direstraits]

If the world is dumbing down, why has mankind advanced more in the last century than ever before in the existance of all earthly life?

It's the top few percent of humanity that brings the whole of mankind forward. The changes wrought by these cream of the crop propel humanity, while the rest of us are merely tagging along.

Example: Only the elite few really knows how exactly an intensely complex microprocessor is built and how it works internally, the rest of us are simply just using what these advancements have brought us. It has no bearing on whether the whole of humanity has in fact grown smarter.

As technology grows, it's getting harder and harder to pick up new things from ground zero i.e. from a humble transistor to a silicon fab facility. It's simply too complicated. I believe, regardless of whether it's microprocessors or whatever, it'll get harder and harder to learn everything to get to where we are now, not easier.

Just my 2 cents.

ds

 

[novella]

It's the top few percent of humanity that brings the whole of mankind forward. The changes wrought by these cream of the crop propel humanity, while the rest of us are merely tagging along.

Example: Only the elite few really knows how exactly an intensely complex microprocessor is built and how it works internally, the rest of us are simply just using what these advancements have brought us. It has no bearing on whether the whole of humanity has in fact grown smarter.


ds

I have another example: Napoleon Bonaparte introduced free public education to all French citizens. Very forward thinking. A real leader. Those "tagging along" now have one of the highest literacy rates in the world.

In fact, worldwide literacy rates have increased 35% since 1980. Even if you can find a more conservative estimate (for those who doubt gov't statistics), rates have increased markedly. How do you account for that, if not the contribution of technology?

I have another example: the foundations of democratic government as conceived by a few ancient Greeks enabled a couple of millenia of generations to have a political voice, putting government at the service of the populace. Glad I was 'tagging along' for that one.

Being literate and smart these days doesn't necessarily mean you have to know how your electric toothbrush works. It means you have an ability to find and use good-quality information. Nobody has been able to know 'everything', even by reputation, at least since Milton. Even he probably couldn't get a coconut down from a tree by himself.

 

[AngusBenton]

BTW: KFC has announced that they are moving back to Kentucky Fried Chicken.