Literature in the News: Why Read?

There is a fascinating article in Dominicana, which is a student publication of one of the Dominican provinces; actually the one in the Northeast of the US, the St. Joseph Province.  The article should be of interest to we lovers of reading.  The article is called "Why Read?" by Br. Simon Teller, O.P.  You can read it here.

The article addresses the new nature of reading that the internet has created and then reflects on the implications of reading sacred scripture.  Brother Teller first brings up a quote from a Rhodes Scholar that characterizes this new reading culture:  "I don't read books ... I go to Google, and I can absorb relevant information quickly,” as quoted in The Shallows.

First in good Dominican fashion (per St. Thomas Aquinas), Br. Teller provides substance to the opposing argument:

To our Rhodes Scholar's point: power-reading has its advantages. Why waste time reading a book cover-to-cover, when the same information can be found by a few deft Google Books Searches? Does it really matter how we read, as long as we are coming away with the same information?

But to the good Brother of the Order of Preachers it does matter when it comes to reading sacred scripture.  Here he presents the counter argument, which is the thesis of his argument:

TO THE CONTRARY, "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them" (Dei Verbum, 21).

The way we relate to words matters, because God has chosen to reveal himself in writing. In a sense, God is "incarnate" in the words of Scripture.

I'm not going to quote the entire article, but I think Brother Teller's main thrust is this:

But God's revelation of himself through the Scriptures can't be reduced to the mere communication of data. Revelation doesn't just mean that God has told us about himself, but that God is inviting us into a personal relationship with him. When you read the inspired words with faith, you step into an ongoing dialogue. For God speaks to each of us personally through the Scriptures.

I completely agree with Brother Teller.  There is very little argument against his point when it pertains to sacred scripture.  I think we could all agree with that.  But frankly I think that Rhodes Scholar's point is preposterous.  To say one gets the same knowledge from a three page Wikipedia entry that one gets from a three hundred page book is obviously fallacious.  Just consider the context of the subject that isn't developed, the counter-arguments, secondary sources, and so on.  Because I read a Wikipedia entry (and I do rely on them and love them) does not mean I understand the full issue.  I've absorbed nuggets and nuggets without full context are like nuggets that are too small and will wash away through a sieve.  Yes, you may get some information, but it is not knowledge.  If this is what scholarship has evolved to, I'm flabbergasted. 

Kerstin on Goodreads Commented:

I don't think this Rhodes "Scholar" is much of a scholar. It looks like someone who has perfected the way of cutting corners. As you say, data collection doesn't equal knowledge. But this is how in a reductionist and materialist world our young people are taught to think. It is all part of simply consuming what others have written or presented without critically diving into the subject matter yourself. Being stuffed to the brim with only facts makes for a sorry human being when knowledge, wisdom, virtue and morals are missing.

My Reply to Kerstin:

I know. He isn't much of a scholar. I wonder how wide spread that is. I could see myself in college doing it too, but I wouldn't be bragging about it.

After I posted my original comment, I thought of a perfect example. Remember when we did the Divine Comedy last year? Now how could anyone get the same understanding of the work by just reading the Wikipedia entry? Yes, the internet summaries might help to enlighten on something that just didn't sink in, but you would never pass on the actual text and claim you read it and understood it