Are we stepping up the information ladder to reach the plateau of information exchange? I have an observation that I would like to take the time to share. This is a break from my regular focus on teaching methods and models. In this post I will map out a transition that I have noticed and how that transition should be affecting the idea of the modern literary canon.
It begins with the printing press. The printing press changed the way that society interacts one with another. It made the mass production of literature an economic feat which allowed individuals within a society to begin to develop a common discourse. I did some digging in the Broadview Anthology of British Literature and re-discovered that the printing press’ impact was so great that by 1640 around “50 percent of all households” owned at least one book (488).
This surge in the printed word brought with it more than simply a good conversation subject among strangers. It also brought with it the need to mediate the abundance of information, and to develop a sense for what comprised “good” literature, and what did not. This process developed out of two models the peer-reviewed information, and the agency sponsored critique. A few centuries after its heavy use, the advent of the printing press and the subsequent monitors’ censorship incited John Milton to provide an energetic speech to parliament defining the need to keep speech free. His speech, Areopagitica, has raised many questions regarding the level of influence of a text.
He was only the beginning of a long debate that still continues, I would venture to say-is even more important, today.
I look towards the development of the comic book as an excellent example of a proto-modern development in literature that paved the way for the consciousness of the internet-reader. The relationship that I see is that the comic book provides a visceral experience exceeding the limitations of basic print text, which allows it a more interpretive nature as a reflection on society. More than simply this aspect is at the heart of the comic book revolution. The comic book was produced in such a manner as to make it’s unique literary appeal an inexpensive method of transmission. It was designed to be a quick read, and to allow for ample reader response. The market was highly flexible, and the success of a comic was very contingent upon the intrigue that it excited in the few seconds that a reader would skim it prior to purchase.
The parallel that can be drawn from this medium to the medium of internet-readership is astonishingly close. Both innovate the medium of literature by direct incorporation of images with the text, and both allow for a clearly definable reader response. The comic book prepared the modern reader for the internet.
I am certain that there are many other medium that also enhanced the development of the modern reader, but I believe that because of my frequent reading from Martin, and Johnny’s blogs I simply could not help but notice this direct relationship. It intrigued me greatly and I felt that I had to post something about it.
Logging you in...
martinmichalek 37p · 732 weeks ago
You're definitely right about the quick read thing, which is funny since the overarching stories these writers tell are read in 30 minute sessions, but published over the course of two, three, sometimes sixty years.
I think for the most part it's incredibly foolish of us to dismiss any medium as lacking in legitimacy. They're each trying to bring a new, unique way of experiencing creativity to the table. At some level, all forms of storytelling are extensions of humanity and interacting with them is a social engagement. Just because one hasn't been canonized, or because you can't get a PhD in it doesn't make it any lesser. I really liked your post and you've inspired me to go back to my Broadview anthology and read Areopagitica. I remember loving it last semester.