Monday, February 3, 2014

Electronic Book Burning

After you have read chaps. 1-4 in Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, please respond to the following question:

Would Postman agree or disagree with the author of the essay below? Why or why not? Draw directly on the reading to support your interpretation.

In addition, do you agree with the essay? Why or why not?

Your response is due by midnight Sunday, Feb. 9.

http://www.evergreenreview.com/120/electronic-book-burning.html

28 comments:

RogerG said...

I think Postman would disagree with the argument the essay is making. I also disagree with it.

What Postman was talking about in his book was the re-orientation from a language-based culture to an image-based one, which I agree is a very disturbing trend.

If we take a hypothetical example from Journalism, let's say a reporter has researched a story on heroin in Poughkeepsie. He has informed himself, and is now an expert on the subject. His next step is to transfer the information he has gained to his readership. He could do this through a literate article, or he could do a multimedia-based approach, and tell the stories through picture and video.

Postman would disagree with the latter, because it lower the threshold of stupidity in public discourse. However, this is not what electronic books are doing.

The aforementioned Journalist has an amount of information, amoebic in form, and decides to disseminate it either visually or through writing. However, the books that are being uploaded to kindle are already in their final form, a word-based one. It is not if the e-book publisher is taking the literature, reverse-engineering it, and then releasing the story in a series of images. Postman would CERTAINLY be opposed to that.

The only thing the e-book publisher is changing is the format. I believe that the media decides the content, but the media is essentially the same---word based. In Postman's theories, the switch-over is about as different as printing the book in a new font.

There are other aspects that are disturbing about the e-book trend, but they are not the sort of issues that have been thus far discussed in the Postman.

Personally, I feel that the e-book trend will strengthen to the point where authors release their works independent of publishing houses, much like a great amount of music is released today. This is actually better for the writers, because, even though a book COSTS less for the reader (another good thing), all the revenue will do directly to the author. It will also be easier for unknown writers to find audiences, since the cronyism of the publishing world will be no more.

Unknown said...

I believe that Postman would disagree with the argument that is made in the essay.

Postman does shed light in chapter 2 and 3 on books and how they were considered very valuable in the past to people. But the points that he tries to make are not about books but rather written words. Postman explains how written words were highly acknowledged in the past and how people had more patience when it came to reading due to the fact that there was not as much leisurely things to occupy oneself with other than reading. Everything from education to law is all supplemented by typographic written words.

What Postman complains is that the ways of reading and writing are being replaced with the way of images. Instead of someone say reading and article they much rather watch a report or documentary about that subject.

If Postman were to read the essay i believe he would disagree because all that is being stated is that books are being made digital. The written words are not being decimated but rather copied to further be compatible with the times. I truly believe that postman would be for this as it gives society yet another way to read written language, which is what he is for. I believe that he would be pleased that works of writing would be more easily accessible for society.

Overall I also do not agree with the essay. Although i enjoy having a tangible book in my hand while reading, I can do without it. As long as I am interested in what I am reading i will read it. I believe the move to the world of e-books as actual a beneficial thing in the fact that it is cheaper, more accessible, and still conforms with what message the author wants to portray.

Unknown said...

I do not think Postman would agree with this article whatsoever. He discusses the “written word” but the modern day written word is also on the Internet, is it not? So who’s to say that this medium of getting words to an audience is any less than a book? He has a problem with this written word becoming images or pictures, saying that an audience would much rather watch something than actually read about it. New technology such as a Kindle is encouraging people to read so I believe that he would disagree with what Kaufman is saying in this article.
I am disgusted by this article and I do not agree with anything he said. He is ultimately saying that our society making books more accessible to humans and having them be available on a handheld is as horrible as the holocaust. I’m sorry but I do not agree. I think that this change in the book world is good for our society: I personally know of at least 10 people who have started reading because having a Kindle makes it so much easier. I agree in the sense of having a physical book in your hand is a wonderful feeling and it is not the same as having something like a Kindle in your hand, but who are you to say that it is worse? That is a matter of opinion. It is a good thing that books are more available to our society. I think Kaufman is exaggerating WAY too much and I am appalled by some of his “conclusions.” He states, “Had I been told from youth that my literary destination would be some 7 inch plastic gizmo containing my texts shuffling alongside thousands of other ‘texts’ I would have spit in the face of such a profession and become instead a hit man or a rabbi.” I mean, how do you even begin to compare an author to a hit man or a rabbi, and how can you classify them in the same profession? I think this article is very offensive and I do not agree with one thing he said.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I believe that Postman would disagree with the argument made this article. Postman discusses how in the past America was dominated by the printed word and the influence it had on people. Rather than the "massive deportation of literary texts to a new home in electronic heaven" as Kaufman put it, Postman feared that the influence that printed word has had on our language-based culture would be consummated by the allure of the simple amusement pictures and video provide for our culture. I don't agree with the article either, and I also think he is blowing things COMPLETELY out of proportion, which irks me. His last sentence had me grinding my teeth in consternation. "The advent of electronic media to first position in the modern chain of Being—a place once occupied by God—and later, after the Enlightenment, by humans—is no mere 9/11 upon our cultural assumptions. It is a catastrophe of holocaustal proportions. And its endgame is the disappearance of not just books but of all things human." First off, the written word is not being "sent to technological heaven", it's simply being copied and transported to a different medium, that actually is more ecologically beneficial for the trees as well. Second, I think comparing this inevitable technological advancement from books to the kindle to utterly tragic and catastrophic events such as the holocaust and 9/11 is just sickening and blasphemous.

Howie Good said...

i'm finding reaction to the essay very interesting in their extreme negativity. personally, i also believe he overstates his point, but, unlike most of you, i don't think the points are entirely invalid. nor do i necessarily agree that Postman would be unsympathetic to the writer's point of view. as i read Postman, he contends that media technology is never content neutral. If that interpretation is correct, then a Kindle is not just an electronic book. the equivalent of turning a hardcover to a paperback, but some new entity. . .

Julia Tyles said...

In ways I think that Postman would agree but disagree. “[His] book is an inquiry into and a lamentation about the most significant American cultural fact of the second half of the twentieth century: the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television...” But it’s not just television its technology in general. Him saying ‘lamentation’ or mourning of the printing age shows that he’s not exactly thrilled about printing decreasing which is where I can see Postman agreeing with Kaufman. But the difference is, is that it seems Postman is more concerned about people not reading in general. “Television is the command center of the new epistemology.” The increasing age of television shows that people just want to be entertained. “Our politics, religion, news, athletes, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business…the result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death.” So if people continue to read educational books and educational articles even if it is on a kindle or online, I don’t think Postman would be that disappointed.
I do not agree with the essay. I feel sympathetic when it comes to bookstores closing. I personally prefer to physically read from a book compared to the kindle but the kindle is cheaper and convenient to get books on. I use the kindle app on my IPad for most of my textbooks. They were cheaper to buy and it’s so much easier to carry from class to class. I feel that’s he’s being very dramatic and he needs to accept that technology is changing. If people are reading I don’t see the problem if it’s in a book or on a kindle.

KellySeiz said...

"To me, the book is one of life's most sacred objects, a torah, a testament, something not only worth living for but as shown in Ray Bradbury's ‘Fahrenheit 451’, something that is even worth dying for." - Kaufman


To ME. To ME, Kaufman writes. The physical manifestation of a story in book-form has almost a religious sentiment to people who have had the pleasure of growing up in a pre-Kindle society. The linen binding, the smell of pressed wood pulp, the ever-thinning glue holding its story within itself...it certainly is poetic.

But, the medium's switch...is it blasphemous?

That would be true if you argued in favor of Postman and Kaufman - the Kindle (for example) in itself distorts the literary experience. While they mimic the finger-swipe of a page, if you lick your finger beforehand, you'll just get your screen wet.

I don't know which I personally agree with, but I think that Postman's "screen theory" basically states that a graphic medium isn't capable of communicating the same level of depth that a literary medium may. If you haven't adapted the book to a movie format, and instead have only digitized its contents, then I don't think you're necessarily limiting its scope. I think you're limiting the traditional reading experience of feeling the pages and holding a story in a rectangular page-filled entity.

You can't wrap an e-book that's been torn and stained and loved and cherished to be given to your granddaughter on her birthday. You can only give them a URL.

Does that diminish the story? I think that's a personal point of view. Personally, I can get just as lost in a book on my Nook as I can in any printed book, but I don't run my hands over its cover remembering the crack of its spine on its initial opening. I don't worry as much about getting my Nook wet than I do about my ancient copy of "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" by T.S.Eliot recited by my father, passed down from my father, and loved equally as much by his daughter. I can just buy a stupid new digital reader.

"The human has opted for the machine, and its ghosts, over the haptic companionship and didactic embodiment of the physical book," Kaufman writes. I guess I agree with him....we've opted for profitability and environmental responsibility over the romanticized hardcover book. We haven't limited the book's impact (as Postman would argue were it to be converted to film), but we have limited the psychological and emotional bond we share with certain copies of books that have sat in our mother's mother's mother's book shelves and hold so many generations of being treasured both for its story and the accumulated love and appreciation that particular copy holds.

Howie Good said...

here's another way to look at it: can you sell your e-book version to a used book store -- can you loan it to a friend who doesn't share the same kind of reader? -- where, in a tangible sense, is the e-book? in the cloud? if someone wished to wipe it out, could they? is the reading experience really as intimate and autonomous as it once is?

Unknown said...

I don’t think Postman would necessarily strongly disagree with this argument. I see that Postman and Kaufman are arguing two different points, however, that does not mean Postman would not support Kaufman’s argument. Postman discusses the importance of language and text in a culture. He makes the argument that society is shifting from a language based culture, to an image based one. Furthermore he attempting to explain the implications of a society based on images and television. He states, “ I want to show that in the twentieth century, our notions of truth and our ideas of intelligence have changed as a result of new media displacing the old (p 26).” Kaufman, a bit dramatically, is arguing about the dying age of print books. However this quote seems to link the two together, almost as if both of them are fighting for a dying cause. In Postman’s book, he is writing about the dying text culture, and Kaufman, the dying print. Like you mention Professor Good, I think Postman would be sympathetic to Kaufman’s argument. I think that Kaufman is being dramatic, but he is still proving a point in which the way society is moving. I can side with him and agree that I much prefer to hold a book than any electronic device. And losing that is a sad thing, especially to a writer. So I do agree that this essay is valid.

Unknown said...

To add to my comment, an e-book is not the same experience as holding a book, tuning the pages. In response to your prompt, I do not think reading has the same intimacy on an e-book. It is difficult to elaborate exactly how or why, but I feel different when I read on a kindle. When I hold a book, its like I develop a relationship with that book. Every book feels different, holds up differently. When multiple books are on a device, then they all feel the same. I would essentially hold the kindle the same way for each book, therefore losing the feeling of each different size and shape book I read.

Unknown said...

It’s a shame that we are characterizing the internet as a graveyard, a “book heaven” while the development of electronic media was expected to be nothing less than an intellectual medium of our culture. We are mourning the death of what Alan Kaufman calls the once concrete object, a hard-covered book - our "sacred torah," which has transformed into an abstract form: a floating ghost on the web. Kaufman, like many others, fear this transformation as it is wiping out the physical form of literature and our traditional ways.

Neil Postman argues a similar premise in Amusing Ourselves To Death and I think would agree with Kaufman’s views as he blames technology for being the leading cause for the disappearance of language and changing the relationship between reader and text in society. The television has changed the way information is projected to the public. It is nothing more but a mode of communication that serves to entertain the public. It took over what a book could do, thus have a one-on-one conversation with the reader on a more personal level but with technology, we just sit there and let information feed into or minds without having to do anything at all.

I do agree with Kaufman’s essay despite his tendencies to be overdramatic. There is no doubt that new technologies are disorting the way literature was once perceived and I feel that it important that we acknowledge it. This generation no longer wants to take the time to open a book, which is also costly, nor even visit book stores when they can easily access any book online. Publishing concrete books is becoming less and less common and writers are becoming less and less motivated. What writer would prefer to have their hard work hung as an invisibile piece on a screen rather than be able to display it with pride in real life? How is the worth of our literature degrading like this?

Unknown said...

I believe Postman would both agree and disagree with the author. In his book, Postman says, “My argument is limited to saying that a major new medium changes the structure of discourse,” in saying this he is somewhat agreeing with the author of the essay. The essay argues that books becoming all digital will and does have negative effects on the world, and Postman seems like he would partly agree with this. If the medium is the message then the medium in this case is changing, yes it is still written word but in a different format. And now with so much available to the world in an instance and all online that changes the manner of discourse. It changes what people will and will not read and in turn what they will and will not discuss.

On the other hand, I believe Postman would also disagree because the emphasis is still on written word. Postman’s argument was against an image-based society, he was in favor of written words and although the books are now available in digital format they are still written words. They still hold the same truth and power that Postman discusses throughout his book.

Personally, I’m not sure whether I agree or not with the article. For myself, I would prefer an actual book in front of me, mainly because staring at screens for too long causes migraines not because I am nostalgic for the way the world used to be. I think books and articles being digital is convenient and people are still getting information so it’s not all negative. I agree though that the world is changing and the closing of bookstore is a terrible thing.

Unknown said...

I believe that Postman would definitely disagree with Kaufman in this article. In the reading Postman is very big on images becoming so much more prevalent today. Less and less do you see people reading books, articles, newspaper, etc. as opposed to watching a film, video clip, or documentary. However, these new technologies are influencing people to still read, even though they are more of an 'image' than a physical book. Postman talks about the negativity that imagery in books would have on our culture, while Kaufman states how book are "Like dead souls leaving their earthly bodies the books are, in effect, going to a better place: the Kindle, the e-book, the web; hi-tech's version of Paradise." Postman would certainly not agree with this quote.

I see the ebook trend becoming more and more popular in the future. I personally do not like the idea of bookstores closing because I enjoy the idea of going to bookstores to read, do work, socialize etc. Some bookstores give people a space to work in a quiet environment with others who are doing the same thing. Although electronic books might be more convenient for some people, I like to physically read a book in my hands. Maybe it is just the way I am used to/was brought up with, but the idea of books going completely electronic is a sad thing to me. In a world where most things involve technology, it is nice to be able to have some down time physically reading a book without having to look at a screen. Reading an actual book in hand seems like a more personal experience in my opinion.

Unknown said...

I don't think Postman would completely disagree with the author. I especially think Postman would respect the author's passion for the subject. I think Postman would see it as just another transition in technology. For example he discusses the changes from the political debates lasting several hours with long detailed response, to a televised semi vague debate. While transitioning from a real book to an e book is different, it's a change in the way people look at books. Just as we now look at political debates entirely different because of a change in the technology offered to us. I personally agree that the end of print books is a great shift in civilization. I do not like how dramatic this author makes his case.

Considering the change in the activity of sharing a book, etc – I don't think anything in our culture is as intimate as it once was. That may seem dramatic but even communication is mostly text and technology based and interpersonal communication has decreased or is left to necessary situations. I think the closing of book stores would bother Postman because it closes a place for social gathering and discussion, which were also his thoughts on the past political debates. However whether you read from an e book or a physical copy it is still reading written word, IPads and Kindles just offer convenience that our society really likes.

Unknown said...

Postman brings up the analogy of the river that becomes polluted. Although the fish have died and the water is unsanitary, someone may choose to ride their boat upon it. Thus, the river still exists, but it is devalued severely. Which is Postman's theory about the shift from print culture to televised culture.

Now if we replaced the televised culture to an internet culture, we can see it kind of remains the same. Postman even mentions that print culture will continue through different mediums such as computers, or "newspapers and magazines that are made to look like television screens." So by this comparison, I believe that Postman would disagree with this article, to an extent.

Alan Kaufman's main point of this book is the loss of the physical book as a medium for reading text. Postman seems to feel that the physical isn't really an issue, as it is just another evolution in media communication. Postman is truly concerned with the media communication and its effects on the public discourse, cultural intelligence, and the society as a whole. The physical means of the book acting as the medium for print is just evolving to modern day conventions, which lacks the physical part.

I personally found the article kind of silly with Kaufman's constant analogies to the Holocaust and the Third Reich. However, I do understand his concern. The fact that e-publisher's can just take away the purchase of those ebook readers is absolutely ridiculous. Also it was very funny that they were Animal Farm and 1984, but that's besides the point. However, that physical text is out there somewhere, so if someone were to scan it and upload it online, it would be visible by those who had the link, or searched it. So yes it is dangerous that information can be wiped away, but I believe that if the information is critical, it will make its way through the internet. Blog posts, PDF, etc. will allow this information to be released. So as long as the internet remains the way it does, something like this doesn't really phase me.

Yes it is frightening that these publishers can reveal what is seen, but with the massive freedom that's found on the internet currently, I believe that these books will find a home somewhere; maybe not for a profit, but as a means of gaining knowledge.

Howie Good said...

one of the issues that's emerging on the internet is pay walls -- that is, the internet is less for free and more and more for a fee (think netflix). as the web becomes monetized, the gap between information have's and have not's will grow, endangering the free mktplace of ideas some of you posit in your responses. the point to remember, perhaps, is that govt censorship isn't the only possible censorship. there's commercial censorship -- what doesn't sell doesn't get marketed. also, while something by on the web, how easy is it to find? how many people are genuine seekers?

Unknown said...

I think Postman would disagree with the author of the essay but I do think there are certain specific points that they have made in common. Both seem to have the opinion that the complete digitalization of books is inevitable. But when you think about previous major cultural shifts there are similarities there as well. In regards to religious discourse, it was once looked down upon to print virtues in a physically readable form. Postman writes, "The Dunkers came close here to formulating a commandment about religious discourse: Though shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time." This seems awfully relevant relating to the current shift from printed materials, which we have come to be the standard form of creative literary work, to ebooks and Kindles. The author of the essay refers to printed books now as "irrelevant social throwback[s]."

I think there are two separate arguments being made in the two pieces that are difficult to compare. Postman is upset with the fact that journalism and news media is making a shift from print to multimedia and that people are more interested in what is sensationalized on screens than in the hard news that they would read in, say, the New York Times government and politics section. He admitted in his book that he enjoys tv and that digitalization has its place. I think his main grievance is that new media platforms make it easier for people to care about tabloid, soft news. It's putting Justin Bieber's arrest at our fingertips to read and share and requiring us to dig for what really matters.

This is where his points overlap with the essay's. The essay talked a lot about how works of literature like books are being transcribes onto digital forms like Kindles and made available to the masses in a less than ideal form. He tells of how only the most 'fit' books survive in physical forms and that eventually "the idea is for no one to be left standing. All physical books must go up the chimney stack."

Personally I am one of those die-hard read a paper newspaper/hard copy of a book people but I can recognize that times are changing and that we need to roll with it. Because it's going to keep going with out without the holdbacks. And as a college student who loves to read I can much sooner afford a $7.50 digital copy of a novel that I can put right on my iphone than a $30 hard copy with the inconvenience of making a trip to the bookstore. I do love the smell and holding it and stuff, and reading from a screen for too long does give me a headache but people like me are becoming a minority and there are bigger things that we, as a population, have to worry about.

Unknown said...

I think Postman would disagree with the essay because of how he believed that books were extremely valuable to people in the past.

I believe this because of how advanced technology is becoming today and the less reading people are actually doing. Online publications are now frequently posting a short summary of the story along with a video that people will watch. People spend less time reading articles today, so the publications do what they can in order to tell the story in the quickest and most efficient way possible.

I don’t think that reading still has the same intimacy now with e-books, but I do prefer reading articles online rather than by print. I think that’s because I have it installed in my brain that the news that’s being printed is old news and the story has probably been updated once, if not twice since it was filed to print.

Yes, some online publications only allow you to read a certain amount of articles for free, but there are ways around that. My father clears his history on his smartphone after 10 articles everyday on the train to work to allow him to continue reading.

Gianna said...

I don’t think that Postman would agree with the argument the author of the essay makes. Throughout his book Postman is speaking of the transformation from a print and language based culture to an image based culture. Books were very important to society in the past. It wasn’t just about the books themselves but the meanings that the books were trying to convey. The issue that Postman has with this is not that images are becoming more prevalent throughout society but that they are replacing words. The essay isn’t concerned with the fact that words are being replaced by images but that books are being made digital. Postman talks about the meanings of the words so I believe that he wouldn’t completely hate the idea of digital books because people can still get to the meaning of the words. What Postman dislikes is people forgetting about the written word and simply turning towards television. I slightly agree with the essay because I do love reading physical books, although a book being in digital form wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me but I understand that e-books are missing something that a physical book has.

Anonymous said...

I think Postman would disagree with this essay. Postman believes that we are consuming our lives with television and the nature of screen culture is making it worse. The essay seems to show that there is no such thing as printed Journalism anymore, and books are being transferred into e-books. I think that Postman's main argument is that with the loss of print, we are losing so much more. Some of our children will never know what it is like to turn the page of a paper book. Everything by that time will be available via E-book. It is a lose of culture. It is a lose of pride in being able to read an actual book. Libraries are closing and people are losing their jobs. The oldest books in the world are being thrown away because without a library there is no place to store them. I think that Postman is trying to make us see how important keeping printed books around is and what kind of culture and pride one gets from being able to read a book. Postman also talks about how people today become so dependent on being amused and entertained that they will not simply pick up a book and read it. They would rather get their news from television or over the computer. And then while being on the computer they can simply just check Facebook or Twitter whenever they may get bored with what they are reading. The essay more bashed anything other then printed books. It didn't even give E-books the chance to defend themselves. I personally love my kindle. I have so many books on it and I can take it anywhere. And I can simply re-read whatever I want whenever because it is all in the same spot. So I do not agree with the points being made in the essay but I do agree with Postman. I agree with him in the sense that people in today's world are most hesitant to pick up a book, like a printed book because sources are and have become very limited to someone.

Joe Nikic said...

Postman would agree with Alan Kaufman on some of his smaller ideas, but Kaufman’s overall theme that books disappearing is a “catastrophe of holocaustal proportions” would not be agreed with by Postman. Postman is in agreement with Kaufman that text is evolving. Postman states that “from painting to hieroglyphics to the alphabet to television. Each medium, like language itself, makes possible a unique mode of discourse by providing a new orientation for thought, for expression, for sensibility.” To Postman the development of language provides new ways of communication, but to Kaufman the development of language in technology is headed for ultimate doom. Postman’s main worry is that people will be choosing images over text.

I personally do not agree with the essay because I think Kaufman exaggerated his point. The world of writing and reading is not ending as print changes to e-books. I prefer reading physical copies of books or magazines or newspapers but for some people it just easier to read stuff on their Kindle. I agree with Postman more that is an issue of people choosing images over text because in my opinion it is dumbing us down as a human race.

Unknown said...

I think Postman would disagree with the author of the essay because of how the digitization of information has made books obsolete and changed the medium in which people inform themselves.

As gratification theory tells us, we are a culture that demands service as quickly as possible and in easily processed packages. That vast majority of reading people do today is in a condensed format that is often light on details. Postman would have seen a loss of character in this.

I believe e-books have taken away the cultural romanticism of print but it does so in the name of efficiency. However, by taking away its tangible property a sense of value is lost on medium.

Unknown said...

I think Postman would agree and disagree with the essay. Postman sees that we used to depend more on books and other forms of literature to provide us information. But as Kaufman said “The world is moving is moving to embrace the electronic media its principle mode of expression”. They both see the importance of printed word and the influence it has on people. Personally I do prefer having a book in my hand rather than reading it off the screen. From my understanding Postman although there are e-books they are/could be considered printed word. He thinks that the meaning of words is being replaced by pictures and videos. Instead of reading about a story, we look up videos that can give us an image to sum up what happened.

I agree that it’s a sad thing book stores are closing, and we are becoming lazy with how we acquire information. Technology is advancing and we are still trying to catch up. Postman would agree with some of what Kaufman expressed, as do I. The transformation of printed word to imagery has clearly affected our society

Unknown said...

I think Neil Postman would agree with Alan Kaufman to an extent. Yes, the former is talking about writing rather than the latter's focus on the actual physical book, but this whole thing of mediums changing the way people think is definitely something they can both relate to.

I am sure Postman would be proud to see his book on peoples shelves /coffee tables, Just as my Father was when he released his first book "Afrikan Alphabets." On a Kindle or Nook, it's just another app.

Which brings me to my main problem with these devices:you can do more than just reading e.g surf the net or watch Netfix. Some people call this convenient, but I call it distracting. If you are gonna be an electronic book then just be a an electronic book, for heavens sake! We live in a society where the more things you can tack on to a product,it becomes better by default and this is sad.

I really miss the days where a phone was just a phone and a video game console was just that. What next? Are we gonna start putting screens on washing machines (If some rich bloke with nothing to do hasn't already tried that.)

Kaufman is on to something. His example of those books being taken of peoples Kindles by that very company is alarming, the reason already stated in the article.

The future is electronic and it doesn't look bright.

Mariah Brown said...

After analyzing the readings. I conclude that Postman would disagree with Kaufman. Postman has a point; more and more people are engaged with visuals, viewing documentaries, video clips, films and pictures. Postman believes this has a negative influence on the culture of embracing images in book. They have a negative effect. Nonetheless, technology is discouraging people to read less because of the readily available short version of things. Postman said something that stood out to me significantly, he says “My argument is limited to saying that a major new medium changes the structure of discourse,” Which is absolutely true, technology has changed the way people read and get their information.

The way people read today has changed significantly, because of online reading and the widely popular Ebook. Personally, I love reading physical books, reading online becomes too much, its tedious and it doesn’t make me as compelled to read.

Harris Yudin said...

For the most part, I think that Postman would disagree with the argument made by the author of the essay, Alan Kaufman. In Amusing Oursleves to Death, Neil Postman discusses how important language is to our culture.

While they both state that technology is causing physical copies of books to slowly die out. However, where they differ is in how they feel about this change. Kaufman believes that it is a disgrace to our culture, while Postman simply wants to ensure that we have a way of reading this text. The words aren't being destroyed, just read in a different way.

I personally disagree with a majority of the article, almost to the point that it angered me. I don't see the transition to reading books electronically as such a terrible thing. Technological advancements is part of what has defined us as a nation. New technology makes life easier on all of us. Books are drastically more easily accessible, for downloading a novel on a Kindle is more easier than driving to a bookstore or library and hoping that they carry the book you are looking for.

I thought the comparison of the book to the "despised Jew" and the mentions of the Holocaust and 9/11 were in very poor taste. The fact that it would even cross his mind to reference such things in an argument surrounding something as trivial, relatively speaking, is mind-boggling to me. He is obviously entitled to his opinion that books are meant to be read as a hardcopy; and it's an opinion many people share; but he seems to have taken it way too far. I don't believe that the transition to e-books is such an awful thing, especially since it makes books more accessible and, as a result, makes reading more convenient. We live in a technologically advanced world, and Alan Kaufman is living in the past.

Unknown said...

While Alan Kauffman can seem extreme in his thoughts, I think he makes really good points and brings to light a lot of ideas that are parallel to Postman’s. A lot of us who are always engaging in electronic media have completely embraced it without being fully aware of what the implications of these changes are. For instance, Postman talks about how in a typographic America, learning was book-learning saying, “Print made a greater impression than actual events,” and quoting Samuel Goodrich who wrote: “The appearance of a new novel from his pen caused greater sensation than did some of the battles of Napoleon.” He does this to describe that reading was not just valued it was literally responsible for American culture and growth, so I can see their frustration in society losing touch with it’s roots. If America was molded and dominated by the printed word well up until the late nineteenth century, than what are the effects of a culture that no longer sees the printed word as important?

Kaufman says, “The world is embracing electronic media as its principle mode of expression,” much like how America once embraced print. This helps me better understand how Postman assesses the strength that print had, even proving that our oratory was based widely on the printed word. This clearly causes concern to these men (and me) because already we see that our oratory system is changing based on our new forms of media. There isn’t sophistication or thoughtful that comes out of a culture that no longer reads because television is neither. It just spoon-feeds us information (actually watching TV requires less effort than being spoon-fed). I agree with Kauffman’s harsh criticism of electronic media. At least picking up a book and reading encourages deep thought, creativity and general knowledge. TV does none of this. I’m worried about America and my future.