Written Word Not That Dead After All

by Amar Toor on December 30, 2009 at 05:10 PM

Ever since the dawn of a glorious thing called the Internet, many among the world's literati have been carping and kvetching about the imminent demise and corruption of the written word at the hands of tweets and other cyber abbreviations. One recent study, however, proudly proclaims prose to be healthier than ever, thank you very much.

As Wired reports, researchers at the University of San Diego found that, contrary to popular belief, the Internet Age has actually seen a substantial increase in the amount of text that people read. (The amount actually tripled between 1980 and 2008.) On average, Americans now "consume" about 100,500 words per day, and they read about 36-percent of them. In other words, we may be writing and reading in OMG and LOL shorthand, but that brevity and, more importantly, the Internet vehicle that facilitates it have allowed us to consume a lot more words -- at least on a strictly volumetric basis.

Of course, quantity doesn't always mean quality, and this recent study isn't likely to convince those who insist that the Internet has rendered us all ADD-addled dilettantes. And they probably have a fair point. Sure, we may click on links to long posts and in-depth articles, but how many of us actually read anything to completion, before getting distracted by an IM or another Facebook notification? [Ed. note - We do, Amar. We never get distra..] Then again, though, the Kindle is more popular than ever, and there has been a lot of hype surrounding Apple's impending iSlate release. That being the case, it's hard for anyone to justify any funeral preparations for the written English language just yet. The Internet may not be Gutenberg's printing press, but we don't think it's linguistically regressive by any means, either. [From: Wired]

Tags: deathofprint, internet, language

Comments

filidh11Dec 30th 2009 10:56PM

Neutral

Unlike the author of this piece, I am underwhelmed by these findings.

According to the graph, only 9% of the average person's "word consumption" today derives from the printed word, whereas 27% derives from computer usage. Based on the information contained in the graph, this means that consumption of the written word on the computer today roughly equals the consumption of the printed word in 1960.

Herein lies the difference.

An adult interacting with the written word in 1960 likely was reading daily newspapers filled with local and international news, magazines with five-thousand word articles, classic literature, modern novels, historical nonfiction, and perhaps the scripture of his or her religious tradition. Reading was a silent, solitary endeavor relying on sustained attention, intellectual engagement, and few to no visual stimuli.

An adult interacting with the written word today likely is reading short (1000-word) news stories preselected to appeal to his or her interests, puff-piece celebrity gossip articles, and the puerile chatter endemic to social networking sites. The selections are short, the words are simple, the opinions are inoffensive, and the entire package is buttressed with screaming, flashing, interactive graphics competing for the reader's attention.

To be sure, the Web is a vast place, and invitations abound to read serious news, great literature, scriptures from every faith imaginable, and histories of any culture on the planet. However, how many people truly avail themselves of these opportunities? Sadly, very few.

As the author eventually admits, "quantity doesn't always mean quality." In this case, he is right. Turn off the idiot box and go read a book. Challenge yourself. Learn something new. Do your part to keep real literacy alive.

Dislike

Report

GinaJan 21st 2010 7:04AM

Neutral

Are you sure that the average person in the sixties was reading literature, newspapers and their bible? Perhaps some were reading Playboy Magazine, or comic books, or some other type of publication. I do not know the answer to the question either, but just knowing how people are, I would guess they were pretty much the same in regards to their taste in reading material. Besides the physical page turning, I think reading on the Internet is the same as reading anywhere else. It is up each individual to select quality material, or not, as the case may be. I think people are resistant to change and that is why they demonize the Internet. For example, they say how dangerous it is too meet people over the Internet, even citing examples of people who did so and had horrible consequences. I totally disagree. I think if anything, the Internet is a SAFER way to meet people. It allows you to get to know them FIRST before sharing personal information such as your address, where you work, what you look like. When you meet people in person they know what you look like, maybe even what kind of car you drive...With one meeting, they have enough information to hunt you down like an animal if they choose to do so. On the Internet, they do not know anything about you unless you allow them to. While its true that some people are dumb enough to share personal information over the net, those are the same people who would find other ways to get in trouble if the Internet didnt exist,. If people use the same common sense on the Internet that they use anywhere else, their experience will be similar to their experience in life.

Dislike