Today, I mentioned something in class that I though was interesting. No one else appeared to take much stock of it, but nevertheless, it interested me. It’s about a possible idea for an essay. The idea is this: Can a student who, not interested in any or most forms of academic achievement, be drawn towards such a thing through writing? More specifically, if he were taught to approach writing not as a dry subject with a predetermined set of rules but as a set of languages, would that student be encouraged to achieve more?
It’s a risky theory, I know, and truthfully, I’m neither certain how I could prove this or if there are even any precedents for it in scholarship. There was Jacques Lacan, who regarded the unconscious mind as being organized and dictated much along the lines of grammar. That, however, is a very dense area to get into, not at all appropriate for a short essay.
But I feel an urge to continue with this, however foolish as it seems. For a brief example, let’s take the subject of literary modernism. We won’t delve into its entire history, of course, but we can simply look at what it was. Modernism came into being as a result of industrialization, in Europe particularly, and meant, at least to its participant, a sort of challenge to what from their point of view were highly inhumane, monolithic societies that revolved around hectic cities. Modernist literature was eminent for mixing genres together: Miguel de Unamuno’s “Don Juan” in “Three Exemplary Novels” is a cross between a play and a short story; Francis Ponge’s poems in “Things” read like short essays. Modernist stories could have non-linear plots: Andre Gide’s “The Counterfeiters,” about a botched attempt at passing fake notes in 1920s France, features a frank portrayal of homosexuality; such writing was useful, time and again, for handling taboo subjects.
My point is, though, is that, by encouraging students of writing to compare the given specimens of writing, and to afford them opportunities to mix genres freely in their writing would, I firmly believe, be very helpful to them. Let me begin by saying, we wouldn’t do this sort of thing indefinitely; clearly, it’s an experiment, something reserved for certain times. But it’s creative; for one, they would learn the limitations of one genre and the advantages of another. I myself have improved my prose by learning the terseness and discipline required of poetry. Also, there are plenty of teachers who’d be more than willing to take part in this sort of experiment. Right this moment, I’m observing classrooms at Monterey high school, English classes whose fabric are torn at the seams, so bored are the students by the predictable readings. Why not add some flavor?
It’s a thought…
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Internet: Its Potentials, Drawbacks
Without a question, few other organisms like the Internet have so thoroughly changed the basis for communication in a society. There were its obvious forerunners, namely radio and then television, which, when first introduced to American society, was thought by many to be a revolution in the mode of communication and culture. One of the first programs to air on TV was a minor play, “The Man with the Flower in his Mouth,” by the Nobel Prize winning playwright, Luigi Pirandello. My father has shared with me fond memories of watching “Play of the Week” on CBS; the program often featured old plays by the likes of Ibsen, Shaw, and O’Neill; as well as original works by Patty Cheyevsky, Tennessee Williams, and Rod Serling, who is more well known as the creator of the “Twilight Zone.” That era, though, is clearly gone, and its demise could perhaps be explained no better than by Serling, who wrote 92 episodes of “The Twilight Zone” himself.
Serling, who allowed his show to be cut out on its third cancellation by CBS, was personally horrified by the new chairman’s tastes and for the brainless pabulum on the new medium we now have come to expect, mostly game shows (i.e. The Joker’s Wild, etc.), believed, I think correctly, that the country was being dumbed down at the behest of a stupid man who happened to be powerful. Looking back, can we doubt Serling’s incisiveness, with modern shows like “Dog: The Bounty Hunter” and “Dancing with the Stars” now topping the ratings? This raises an important point, though, namely of what or what not the public considers to be interesting entertainment.
Clearly, there is that lingering temptation to say,”Americans will watch any shit you put on.” Why, though? “Because they aren’t smart enough to distinguish the important matters, the ones that really mean anything.” I couldn’t be sure that everyone shares this view, though I do disagree with its main point, particularly, that people are not interested in world politics, and, being naturally dim, are better suited for what Columbia University professor Paul Nystrom called a “philosophy of futility.” The average Joe, who, so stupid he cannot conceive his own predicament, ought to be driven into a life of menial servility and labor, where he can relieve his pain with the miracle of consumerism. That, unfortunately, has been the bent of television throughout its history, and I see no reason why Internet shouldn’t flow in that direction as well. In fact, it already has, to a great extent, for the reason I just mentioned.
There are differences between the Internet and Television. For one, the Internet isn’t dominated (yet) by advertisers and concentrated capital, which, as one would expect and sees every day, is the decisive force behind decision-making and entertainment. Debates continue in these circles about whether or not the Internet should remain free or become, like in China, managed and controlled. I myself receive e-mails from activist groups describing, in the most foreboding terms, the importance of a free and open Internet. The reasons are clear. These groups want what the other mediums have long ceased to offer, most importantly, a medium where they can go to discuss important matters that affect them. That isn’t what all of the internet is used for, obviously, but that is what many people, intelligent people, are talking about.
I can only hope that these groups will be successful with their basic goal, that the Internet will remain free, and television, radio, and print will someday realize the potential to inform and stimulate the public, as they clearly now do not.
Serling, who allowed his show to be cut out on its third cancellation by CBS, was personally horrified by the new chairman’s tastes and for the brainless pabulum on the new medium we now have come to expect, mostly game shows (i.e. The Joker’s Wild, etc.), believed, I think correctly, that the country was being dumbed down at the behest of a stupid man who happened to be powerful. Looking back, can we doubt Serling’s incisiveness, with modern shows like “Dog: The Bounty Hunter” and “Dancing with the Stars” now topping the ratings? This raises an important point, though, namely of what or what not the public considers to be interesting entertainment.
Clearly, there is that lingering temptation to say,”Americans will watch any shit you put on.” Why, though? “Because they aren’t smart enough to distinguish the important matters, the ones that really mean anything.” I couldn’t be sure that everyone shares this view, though I do disagree with its main point, particularly, that people are not interested in world politics, and, being naturally dim, are better suited for what Columbia University professor Paul Nystrom called a “philosophy of futility.” The average Joe, who, so stupid he cannot conceive his own predicament, ought to be driven into a life of menial servility and labor, where he can relieve his pain with the miracle of consumerism. That, unfortunately, has been the bent of television throughout its history, and I see no reason why Internet shouldn’t flow in that direction as well. In fact, it already has, to a great extent, for the reason I just mentioned.
There are differences between the Internet and Television. For one, the Internet isn’t dominated (yet) by advertisers and concentrated capital, which, as one would expect and sees every day, is the decisive force behind decision-making and entertainment. Debates continue in these circles about whether or not the Internet should remain free or become, like in China, managed and controlled. I myself receive e-mails from activist groups describing, in the most foreboding terms, the importance of a free and open Internet. The reasons are clear. These groups want what the other mediums have long ceased to offer, most importantly, a medium where they can go to discuss important matters that affect them. That isn’t what all of the internet is used for, obviously, but that is what many people, intelligent people, are talking about.
I can only hope that these groups will be successful with their basic goal, that the Internet will remain free, and television, radio, and print will someday realize the potential to inform and stimulate the public, as they clearly now do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
