We use our screens to
write and read so much that we have turned the noun “text” into a verb.
However, while we read and write with and for the screen, is not the screen
better used for verbal and visual communication?
Text is a secondary
form of language. The spoken word was first. Because text is derived from the
spoken word, why should I sit and write this column and pass it on to screen
readers when, with only a little more trouble, I could record my thoughts on a
video, upload it and allow readers to hear my words and see me, instead of only
reading what I have written?
Already many
communicators use both text and video-audio. They do not write. They
communicate through podcast, YouTube channels, online radio and instant TV. The
audience accesses the audio visual content through every gadget that can go
online. They do so globally with the same portability and with easier access
than toting books, magazines and papers. The question is not whether the
revolution from text to audio-visual will take place, but when and how fast.
I
think he’s captured the state of the transition in contemporary life. There is no question that the tried and true
printed text is no longer the only option we have in communicating, especially
reading. Longenecker goes on to ask the
pressing question.
As audio visual
communication becomes more, inexpensive and ubiquitous will we witness the
death of text? Already the screen has all but killed the daily newspaper, the
and the weekly news magazine. What will become of the novel, the short story or
even news stories and written opinion? Movies tell the stories in a livelier
manner without the need of text. Current television series extend over many
episodes delivering the same drama, conflict, romance and adventure that
readers used to glean from reading fiction. What of textbooks, biographies,
encyclopedias, resource books and for that matter, cookbooks, travel books and
all non-fiction? Why shouldn’t these text based media be communicated as well
or better through the audio visual technologies which are already available and
which are cheaply and effectively delivered through the internet?
He
asks more questions than he answers, but underlying is an apprehension that
change will bring loss.
As text dwindles what
will be lost? In fiction the most important loss will be the activity of the
imagination as the reader engages with the text. Screen storytelling leaves
nothing to the imagination, but audio visual communications may, on the other
hand, spark a renewal in storytelling. As text dies, poetry—now completely
textual, may become spoken and sung once more. The bard may rise again.
He
isn’t completely negative on the change, but still asking question without
answers when we are dealing with a state of flux on a tried and true pleasure
(reading) and even on how religious liturgy (Fr. Longenecker is a Roman Catholic
priest) may be altered because of new mediums sends shock waves. You should read the entire article. My position is that technology will only
evolve if the general consumer finds it advantageous. Here is my actual comment to his essay.
Manny:
I think you’re worrying
for nothing, Fr. D. Either civilization will adapt to a new way of reading and
writing or more likely will divide their mediums. Writing on paper will never
go away. Typing with a key board will never go away. Oral communication in
whatever form will never go away. Students and humans (Yes, I know students
might not quite be full humans -P) will require more skills than ancient humans
to full[y] express themselves in civilization. I still prefer a paper book over
my Kindle, though I sometimes use a Kindle.
Another
commenter to the piece decided to reply to my comment, a person named Andrew
Carlan. We had a lively exchange that I
think is worth considering.
Andrew
Carlan:
We are conducting our
dialogue on the Internet. As Marshall McLuhan argued “the medium is the
message.” How ideas are communicated is more important than the ideas
themselves. Sola scriptorium was the “invention” of movable type. Protestantism
is inherently literal. (Please, I am not saying that there is not a tradition
of the literal is Catholicism. The Scholastics anticipated print.)
Russell Kirk’s
traditional conservationism is being processed now overwhelmingly visually and
not in print. The website is not situated in a sober library. It is awash and
surrounded in a sea of superficiality, paganism, pornography and ubiquitous
subliminal advertising, which even invades its very sanctuary. It has always
worried me that even the most orthodox Catholic sites are visited not by good
persons prepped for piety and rational reflection but who have arrived via
surfing the Internet, a very different predisposition.
Our message is being
distorted by the prevalent background noise. I fear the time is not long off
when Mass will be celebrated on line and the host will be delivered over a 3-D
printer. Already the Popes have been disfigured into Hollywood superstars
followed by the sensationalist media interested in selling copy and not faith
and millions of loyal “fans”.
Manny:
The printable type
didn’t destroy Catholicism. Catholicism adapted. How ideas are communicated is
NOT more important than the ideas themselves. With all due respect, that’s ridiculous.
That would mean the true and noble ideas are time and medium limited. No, they
are eternal.
Andrew
Carlan:
I never implied that
the ideas don’t have their irreducible and eternal truth. What is uttered
remains unchanged. It is how it is heard that is contextual. St. Paul did say
that when you speak to the Athenians, etc. speak in a manner they are
accustomed to. But there is a tipping point where the message becomes so
distorted that it conforms to the world rather than transforming the world.
Debaters know that the side that defines the form of the question to be debated
has won the debate before it begins.
Manny:
I’ll quote you: “How
ideas are communicated is more important than the ideas themselves.”
No, that is patently
wrong. The medium does not distort the message. The medium is not part of the
message. Debaters don’t know such a thing. Debaters, at least good ones, make
themselves clear and use the medium to transmit the message. I wholeheartedly
disagree with you. True and noble ideas have remained true and noble no matter
what the medium they have been communicated. The eternal ideas have NOT been
distorted by the evolving technology.
I
hope I wasn’t mean spirited to Mr. Carlan; if I was I apologize. Does his notion that the medium shapes the
value of the ideas communicated have merit?
I guess it holds some merit though on balance I still don’t see why it
would. Am I in the minority here? Did Protestanism’s principle of sola scrpitura come about because of the
printing press as I think he was trying to say?
I bet some of the deconstructionists might agree with him.
And
what about my comment directed at Fr. Longenecker? Will audio-visual overtake text as the
primary means of communication? Or are will
we have to multitask more, toggling, if you will, between various mediums? After all, we’ve had film and television now
for a century and it hasn’t destroyed text.
It’s only added to the possibilities.
Interesting
discussion.
(Fr. Longenecker is a Roman Catholic priest)
ReplyDelete((( I hope I wasn’t mean spirited to Mr. Carlan; if I was I apologize. )))
Manny! To be honest, there was a time in the past where I might have thought that you could have been a little mean spirited but after I listened to you talk about your mother and your son, well long story short, after following you a little, I can safely say that you're not mean spirited at all. Longer story shorter, I now believe that you're simply a very smart engineering man who wants to debate intellectually. Some out in the vast Web might be convinced that you could lack a little patients debating with those who might clearly have an un Christian agenda but for what "IT" is worth, I personally thing that their audio-visual belief of this Twenty First Century are not more important than GOD (Good Old Dad) Our Heavenly Father of The Old Printing Press could ever be? Did "I" hit the nail on the head sort of speak? LOL :)
http://taylormarshall.com/2014/07/041-5-intellectual-virtues-pornography-art-culture-podcast.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=041-5-intellectual-virtues-pornography-art-culture-podcast&utm_source=Taylor+Marshall%27s+Updates&utm_campaign=5f2aba2ae3-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_64accbc3c7-5f2aba2ae3-59109501
God Bless
Thank you Victor. I do have a patience problem, and it does lead to me losing it at times. I get emails for Taylor Marshall's podcasts too, but they are over 40 minutes long each, and I don't usually have the time to listen.
Delete