I completely understand that writing for a public audience means you will receive a certain amount of backlash. And people will critique. But the volume of bad faith arguments and people superimposing, their own personal preferences onto something that you literally did not say is bad for all involved.
In some ways, the old days when you had to actually write a letter to the editor or perhaps write an email to the Writer things were better.
I agree. In the Before Times, writing a letter to the editor meant you were passionate enough to read an essay in full, write a sufficiently coherent critique, and pay to send it by mail to a large newsroom where it may or may not be read, let alone published.
I had almost forgotten the days when we were sufficiently exercised about some current issue, or an article, that we'd write and post ( and later, email) a letter to the editor. We'd ensure the content was brief and coherent, and copy edited to within a semicolon of its existence. Then scour the letters page to see if we'd been included. Thanks for reminding me of a time when we were more civilised.
You've made me realize that I now go into reading looking for points I disagree with, and then often stop reading. It's not that I don't want to be challenged. It's not that I don't want to disagree. Points of disagreement often make the best conversations. But culture has reached such a fever pitch of "with us or against us- villain or hero" that I am now reluctant to give much time to those I disagree with because I fear there is no conversation to be had. If I disagree, the chance of being attacked is so high, it's no longer interesting- just frightening/depressing. Of course, there are writers who seem to hold themselves to an older standard-one where they'll engage with disagreement in good faith, but you have to really look for them.
This is why I’ll hold back on bashing boomers. They’re faithful readers and willing to get to the end of the article. The younger set that “went to college” are lazy and are easily tempted into consuming affirming/stimulating content.
So yes, for most of society, we’re definitely suffering a crisis in literacy. I see this as an English teacher. I’d also add that fiction isn’t as prioritized as it used to be. This was a good way to get past the usual political hangups and see a fellow human working through a conflict and build up fluency and depth of thought. Nonfiction texts, especially written at high school and college level, are not as accessible or interesting, and they don’t help with building up capacity for nuance and empathy.
Excellent work. The *willful illiteracy*
is exhausting.
I completely understand that writing for a public audience means you will receive a certain amount of backlash. And people will critique. But the volume of bad faith arguments and people superimposing, their own personal preferences onto something that you literally did not say is bad for all involved.
In some ways, the old days when you had to actually write a letter to the editor or perhaps write an email to the Writer things were better.
I agree. In the Before Times, writing a letter to the editor meant you were passionate enough to read an essay in full, write a sufficiently coherent critique, and pay to send it by mail to a large newsroom where it may or may not be read, let alone published.
I had almost forgotten the days when we were sufficiently exercised about some current issue, or an article, that we'd write and post ( and later, email) a letter to the editor. We'd ensure the content was brief and coherent, and copy edited to within a semicolon of its existence. Then scour the letters page to see if we'd been included. Thanks for reminding me of a time when we were more civilised.
My pleasure!
Just remember: If your writing isn't pissing somebody off, you are doing something wrong.
Thank. You.
You've made me realize that I now go into reading looking for points I disagree with, and then often stop reading. It's not that I don't want to be challenged. It's not that I don't want to disagree. Points of disagreement often make the best conversations. But culture has reached such a fever pitch of "with us or against us- villain or hero" that I am now reluctant to give much time to those I disagree with because I fear there is no conversation to be had. If I disagree, the chance of being attacked is so high, it's no longer interesting- just frightening/depressing. Of course, there are writers who seem to hold themselves to an older standard-one where they'll engage with disagreement in good faith, but you have to really look for them.
This is why I’ll hold back on bashing boomers. They’re faithful readers and willing to get to the end of the article. The younger set that “went to college” are lazy and are easily tempted into consuming affirming/stimulating content.
So yes, for most of society, we’re definitely suffering a crisis in literacy. I see this as an English teacher. I’d also add that fiction isn’t as prioritized as it used to be. This was a good way to get past the usual political hangups and see a fellow human working through a conflict and build up fluency and depth of thought. Nonfiction texts, especially written at high school and college level, are not as accessible or interesting, and they don’t help with building up capacity for nuance and empathy.
Heh. So, "Death of the Reader".