I missed the first class meeting with Bomer, because I cannot read a course schedule. A bad start to a program in Literacy. I read the comment about Nietsche and the typewriter from another classmates blog, it made me think of Roland Barthes comment in an interview I read years ago where he said his writing changed depending upon what type of pen he was using. I started reading the Ong book last summer after I found it in the Coop. It got me all worked up. Massively divergent ideas concerning Orality and Literacy. The idea that literate cultures think differently because of the linear nature of text made me think of M. McLuhan, “The medium is the message” mantra. Are we in a post-literate world now that most of what we, or at least my students, gather from the world comes from non-print media: TV, film, the web? Does this affect our thinking? In a graduate class years ago, we were reading passages from Finnegans Wake. It is a difficult text, to state the obvious. We came to the conclusion that the only way for meaning to be made was through a communal effort, which to state the obvious, is how meaning is made with any text.
I didn’t know that Roland Barthes is on a similar (or more radical) line with Ong and McLuhan. Could you remember where the comment came from. Actually, I have much interest in how different types of media affect differently the way of thinking-especially reading and writing, and currently I analyze the difference between handwriting and computer writing. So, I guess, Roland Barthes should be read. Thank you for introduction to Roland Barthes!
Interesting….Books like Finnegan’s Wake and Ulysses… I ask myself what is the point? That sounds terrible, but there is something to said for how we use our time to make meaning of life. What do you mean by post-literate?