16 thoughts on “Week 6 – Writing, Books, Literature (T3)”
Edwin Lee Xian Ming
In “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader” Chartier speaks of how all written work is a form of social construction. He asserts that the form in which the text is presented in will affect the way we approach and intepret it.
Indeed ,this ties in with the concept brought about by McLuhan – “The medium is the message”.
Especially in today’s world, whereby written material can be expressed in many different forms. A prose, printed in a hardcover book, compared to one seen on the Internet, elicits different sentiments from its reader. One could even argue that even within different mediums, variations on their intepretations exist – the same content presented in The Daily Tribune will have a much different intepretation when done so on Cracked.com.
Elix Lee
For Ong, writing restructures consciousness. Written work has a certain kind of authority. However, the author is displaced in writing versus speech. Writing is not only detached from author but also from human touch because it is in print. Writing is very conscious as it is more rule-oriented. This allows for a standardization – eg. alphabetization. Writing has a more democratic function as the contents and thoughts can get disseminated to more people. Writing allows for separation of sound from idea and from the ideator.
For Chartier, we have to think of language, speech as power and capital. We have to look at how different people interpret different things differently by looking at the text, its form and the reader’s background and social attributes.
Bryan Chia Yong Siang
I would actually be inclined to agree with what Ong has mentioned about codes encrypted within texts.
“With writing or script in this full sense, encoded visible markings engage words fully so that the exquisitely intricate structures and references evolved in sound can visibility recorded exactly their specific complexity and, because visibly recorded, can implement production of still more exquisite structures and references, far surpassing the potential of oral utterance” – Ong
From my understanding of this phrase, the author is trying to say that texts are beyond just oral communication and not serving merely the function of telling a message. There is a more complex relationship within the texts, the writer and the reader, based upon their different social experiences. Does anyone else have the experience of their mind unconsciously formulating an image of the sender when reading the formal emails in their NTU account like I do? Though we may not have seen the actual person but we would actually have an impression that they would be typing the email in a formal setting – in the office or in the study environment. However, who knows that they might be sending the email in an unexpected environment, perhaps during the time when they are in need of the toilet? Well, if the image of the sender sending the email in toilet comes into your mind naturally, it is likely that you have done such thing before – that such social experience is no stranger to you and it has been engraved into your mind which allows you to formulate the code of the texts beyond just the language conveyed by the it. =)
Kelyn Phua
The transformation from the practice of reading out loud in a group to silent reading could have been brought about by urbanization. Inventions usually arise from needs. Making reading material mobile in paperback or tablet form was probably a need stemmed from the fact that people in modern societies are often in a rush. Due to the pressure to make the most out of one’s time, reading is often done while doing something else, like traveling, baking, doing the laundry etc. Therefore, the process of reading has changed dramatically as we are often interrupted in the middle of the text. This reminds us of Enzensberger’s idea on how new media is oriented towards action, not contemplation. It is difficult to analyze texts while multitasking.
Ong suggests that speech comes to us naturally. Speech is unconscious, while writing is conscious. However in many situations, speech is conscious when we are forced to speak in a particular manner. Several examples include: during an interview, giving an important presentation, talking to a foreigner or serving a customer. In such situations, one may not always be free to express himself in the manner most comfortable to him, but rather, one that is expected of him. When memorizing scripts during a presentation, the presenter recites from his memory something that he wrote. In these cases, speech could almost be as conscious and structured as writing. When writing in a diary, one can write as though he is speaking to himself. Thus it cannot be clearly distinguished whether a form of expression is conscious. Writing allows passing ideas to find permanence, and some of these ideas inspire debates, causing us to challenge assumptions in the society. Having a written text means we can read the same thing over and over, and this gives us time to fully understand and form our own response. Therefore, like Ong, I disagree with Plato that writing alienates us from our soul, but rather, I think it allows us to connect with it.
Brandon Lye
In the reading by Walter Ong, it is mentioned that Plato criticises writing, such as being dehumanizing and that it destroys memory.
However, I feel that his view of writing is too one-dimensional. Without writing, how could the works of Plato be read and experienced today? Writing can be said to be one of the main catalysts for the development of modern society.
Ong also mentioned that writing is ‘artificial’, and I feel that with digital media today, this ‘artificiality’ has increased even more. Everyone’s handwriting is increasingly replaced by computerised fonts etc. To convey emotions, people use the same emoticons in texts and emails. While technology has made man closer to one another, it can be said to have also made us more and more similar to each other.
Chua Xiu Juan
We will usually associate a book with the author rather than the publisher. After all, authors write books, isn’t it? A line in Chartier’s article thus immediately caught my eye. ‒“Authors do not write books… Rather they write texts.”
The forms in which texts and words are presented to the reader affect how readers approach and interact with the text. Yet, it is easy to overlook that authors do not decide the layout and presentation of their text. Publishers and printing houses play a greater role in making that decision, hence shaping the mode of reading. Authors decide the content and style of text; publishers however, have the overarching power to control how texts are presented. Power relations play a crucial role in shaping reader’s interaction with technology and media.
The constraints and agendas of publishers pertaining to how a particular text should be arranged and presented reflect how we are inadvertently and possibly subliminally affected by the decisions of publishers. The placement of advertisements and major news stories in newspaper is a result of careful consideration of the editorial team. The news stories on the front page above the fold contain what media editors deem the most important news of the day. These cover stories are what the gatekeepers think the public should find important, not necessarily what we would find important.
However, as Herman and Chomsky argue, the bureaucratic affinity that news media share with the state and powerful corporations will result in media biases. This is so not only in terms of the news content, but also as a result of the news layout. News media can determine how easy it is for the public to read a particular story through the placement and layout of the text, headlines, the page and section it is published on, whether there are accompanying photos et cetera.
The Straits Times for instance, was lambasted by online media for showing biasness towards the incumbent party through its news layout for the coverage of the 2011 general election. This proves that the form of the text does indeed make a difference.
Lyndon Leong
Walter J. Ong talks about the evolution of different mediums and how these mediums shape the communications process. It explains that texts has somewhat been transformed through the ages, into something of immeasurable complexity and inbuilt with the capacity to manipulate the masses. He also says that since the advent of writing, forms of communication and the reception of information has been greatly altered. The subjectivity of the interpretation of texts makes it contentious. Chartier says that an interpretation of a text “is not already inscribed in a text… a text does not exist except for a reader who gives it significance”. Furthermore, drawing reference to what Ong says about autonomy, it is not always possible for the reader to decipher the true meaning of the texts fully because he does not know the context in which the author is writing. Other factors such as the socio-cultural context, the time period, literacy rates etc. come into play when someone is interpreting a certain text. In addition, there is a certain marginalisation effect of texts as well. It is simpler to reproduce texts than speech and thus, a large number of people are able view texts in a shorter period of time. Hence, propaganda thrives through the usage of text. In essence, sociocultural constructions could perhaps be said to be linked to technological determinism.
Ng Shi Yao
We often fail to draw the link between literature (and its different forms) and society. In his book, Hoggart referred good literature as ‘recreating the wholeness of life, the life of emotion and object-laden world’. Literary entails styles and genres and traditions of culture. The different types of writing; be it novels or poems, releases its meanings and is subjective to different individuals. It is often the case where the type of writing tells which era and time the author is writing in. In modern culture, we see the emergence of popular mass art, coupled with the advent of technology and new mediums of transmission. Mass art can be explained simply in economic and commercial terms, where the direction of the art is dependent on an advertiser’s decision. Art is therefore, recreated to suit the tastes and demands of the audience.
Hoggart talks about paying attention to little details such as individual words and images, syntax; the literary critic can make assumptions about each author’s sense to his audience and society. In mass art, the differences in layout and style in which the art is presented to us, would affect our perceptions. Take for example; the layout of print-advertisements would entail bright colors and eye-catching phrases, to get the attention of consumers. The study of literary has allowed us to study how writing could be presented and which would appeal to a numerous different groups of people.
Koh Hui Yi
In Chartier’s Laborers and Voyagers: from the text to the reader, he discussed how readers are similar to voyagers where we explore different lands that don’t belong to us. Similarly, we read books, articles that are written by the authors and understand the ideas within these texts. Chartier talked about the importance of the layout of the text and how it is presented to the readers. He talked about the mundane changes found in the layout which has since significantly change the way people read. The content of the book or the text might be important, but the layout of the text is also equally or even more important to contribute to the wholeness of the experience. I agree with what Chartier says here. In fact, I avoid reading certain books despite the fact that the content has been given good review simply because I was not used to or dislike the layout of the text. One example is James Patterson’s books. There are a lot of chapters in his books and the the numbers of chapters deter me from enjoying reading the book. This cause me to avoid his books despite the fact that I like reading crime novels. Furthermore, the importance of layout is seen in many medium where we are exposed to. We watch movies not just because the story plot interests us,but because the actors’ and actresses’ acting skills are good, the effects are awesome and the trailers attract our attention. How these movies are publicized also affect whether we want to watch it. Hence, I find that what Chartier raised is not only sound but especially valid in our society where many corporations invest billions of dollars to package their products, their service to attract audiences instead of just focusing on raising the quality of their content.
Poh Yang Ann
Walter Ong asserts that writing restructures the way human organizes thought, or in his term, consciousness. Ong argues for the merits of writing against the dismissive view of Plato. Plato, who is a believer that speech brings forth the essence of human inner being, contend that writing is artificial and that it degrades and weakens the mind since individuals can now rely on physical written records rather than putting them into memory. In addition, Plato also argues that writing has changed the dynamics of social interaction where the authors are physically absent in the communication process, which is further problematized in terms of clarification of doubts and queries by the reader. Ong presents an alternative view when he defines writing as a form of technology (entailing the extensive use of tools). He makes a stance that while writing is artificial, it is not necessarily dehumanizing – with particular reference to musical instruments, Ong challenges that technology enhances human potentials and heightens consciousness.
Writing, as Ong argues, is a representation of an utterance. Put differently, words is a system of codes that translate what the writers want to say from audio to visual form, and with high level of accuracy. Ong makes a claim that Greek alphabetical system played a pivotal role in the transformation of human history. Due to its simplicity and coherence, Greek alphabet is widely taught, learned, interiorized and used – it is both democratic and international. Juxtaposing writing and speech, Ong highlights that the former allows for better structure and precision – one can order a set of random and disorganized thoughts into a coherent flow and can erase and make correction to a piece of writing. Writing and written records then took on an authoritative role, and continues to grow in significant in the rational-legal bureaucratic society today. Ong makes another assertion that because the author is physically absent in the process of conveying messages or information, one has to be conscientious in the choice of words and use of punctuation to represent what they want to say as fully as they can. In Ong’s term, the author has to fictionalize the reader and vice versa. Writing (and as for reading) while is an individual activity, is henceforth simultaneous social.
Roger Chartier makes similar claim as Ong in a double sense. First, Chartier argues that books are not written by authors, but are the products of “the publishers’ decision or the constraints of the printing house” (p.53). Second, he claims that reading is a social activity: “Reading is not only an abstract operation of the intellect: it puts the body into play and is inscribed within a particular space, in a relation to the self or to others” (p.53). The undergirding premise of Chartier’s assertion is the introduction and proliferation of print technology. He claims that print technology has altered the mode of reference and interpretation; print technology is a precursor for what the modern society has been practicing – silent reading. In the pre-print era, reading was done aloud; reading is a form of socialization where the literate communicate with the illiterate by vocalizing the visual. However, this habit is discarded with the advent of mechanical reproducibility where a text can be copied easily in mass quantity. The ease of reproducing text allows for (and perhaps necessitate) the better organization of text and the simplification of content so that it can be read by a wider audience. In a different light, this resonates Ong’s assertion that writing is equalizing in nature, which allows for democratic distribution and accessibility. This transformation nevertheless impacted the way society organizes itself. With books make affordable and accessible to anyone, reading is no longer a collective activity but an individual one; reading aloud is replaced by silent reading.
Aloysius Teo
Reading the articles this week, the reemergence of typography came to my mind (despite its existence in ancient history). Typography in contemporary society can be seen through various aspects such as fashion, posters and advertisements. We often see a combination of different words, styles, colors and shapes to form an image or a text (Google images: typography). With this simple manipulation, producers are able to capture greater attention from the masses. Typography is also an extension of a company’s brand where a particular font or typeface is associated with the company’s logo. Imagine if the McDonalds sign or Coca-cola logo we see everyday is in another font like comic sans. We might have a different perception or idea of the product, whether we are familiar with it or otherwise.
Seow Yi Min Eunice
Something that I found interesting in Chartier’s reading, was his re-examination and proposal of modifications to the studying of the historical context of reading practices, and the actual act of reading itself. This can be seen in the points below.
1. “recognition” – of the inevitable existing social divisions
2. “reconstruct” – of the operations (historically and socially) put in place with regards to accessing texts.
3. “insist” – that a mandatory distinction is to be made between the intentions of the author (strategies of writing) vis-à-vis the publisher and the printing house’s methods for consumer targeting.
These proposed modifications, establishes the criticality Chartier had in view of the modernized relations between the text, book and reader.
The triangular relation highlights one of interdependency between the 3 factors, which is a notable aspect in understanding how writings and books can be critically studied and analyzed as forms of media in the social context.
Firstly, intersectionality between the book, the reader and the socio-economical relation, is suggested by Chartier to be over-focused upon in the study. The recognition that he poses, is in lieu to the fact that having access/lack thereof to the book, and one’s social class (the social divide) is inevitably true. However, it is via these presented differentiations, that one can use the information efficiently in studying how such situations affect the actual act of reading itself (being “apprehended, handled, and understood” differently). Thus, recognition here, is instead of criticizing merely the inequality presented, one should learn to study the presented inequality and understand the social impacts it has on the transmission quality of information to the masses. He further points out the neglecting of other socio-factors, such as Gender, Religion, Cultural traditions, etc. which should be taken into consideration too.
Secondly, interdependency is formed between the text and the reader, via his proposed “reconstructing” of the foundation behind the understanding texts. He mentions re-discovering past forgotten gestures and habits that have been replaced over the years. Thus, the relation formed is one whereby, readers are encouraged to go back to “one’s roots”, and encouraged to take up the study of once historically valued actions potentially providing access to more text, or being able to take away more from studying a single text. This is in contrast to the limitations of the categorized specifications put in place in texts today.
Lastly, his call for discernment via “insisting” for a distinction to be made between intentions of the author and the publisher/printing house, highlights the transactional process between the text, the book and how it will similarly affect the reader. “Authors do not write books”. Here, the Author’s texts are engineered according to the Publisher/organization’s wishes, commoditized in the form of a book. It is interesting to note that there is a sense of “double subjectivity/interpretation” going on, whereby, not only is the text subjective to the reader’s interpretation, but so is the book. Chartier mentions the changing of the “mode of reading (causing)… diverse meaning to the same text”. Thus the distinction made between the Author and the Publisher produce separate meanings, that would be both useful for the reader in studying not only the act of reading, but even the historical contexts of which.
In sum, this triangular relationship between the text, book and reader is one of importance, and pertinently useful in the studying of how printed forms is used in the relaying of information/ building communication networks.
#MUHAMMAD FAISAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDEN#
Hoggart mentions that ‘good literature recreates the experiential wholeness of life’. This got me thinking about Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘aura’. Aura is the presence of the object, its uniqueness in time and space and a sense of distance between the user and the work of art. No matter how perfect the image of the maintain range is, it is still not the same as witnessing it within its nature. Although text and images both use the sense of sight, a literary work is fundamentally different from a piece of art. There is no sense of elusiveness in literature. Writings bring the reader into the author’s world of ‘individual and social meanings’.
I argue that works of literature have their own aura embedded in the meaning of the text. As Roger Chartier mentions, ‘meaning depends upon the forms through which they are received and appropriated by their readers’. Hence, each work of literature has the ‘authenticity’ aspect of aura in that every author tells their own, unique story. Each writing is made authentic in its tone, manner and language. Hence, I feel works of literature do not lose their aura even after it is mechanically reproduced as the meaning within the text still remains.
Tiara Robyn Chew
After I completed the reading, “Laborers and Voyages: From the Text to the Reader” by Roger Chartier, there were two points that stood out particularly for me. One was that the interpretation of a text “is not already inscribed in the text” and that a text “does not exist except for a reader who gives it signification”. What I understood by it was that texts are subjected to varying interpretations on the basis of the reader’s own knowledge and understanding, and I thought that perhaps this could be applied to the reading and understanding of religious texts, like the Bible. For instance, many argue that there are passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that condemn homosexual acts, while others claim that the rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality at all. And these varying interpretations pose a very big problem, considering many LGBT laws in the US are upheld because of the preservation of religiously conservative views.
The other interesting point that stood out for me, was the continued revolution in the “techniques of textual reproduction” from scribal culture (which is defined by the written or physical conveying of ideas) to print culture (which embodies all printed forms of visual communication). It is true that it is continuously evolving, because since the advent of electronic tablets, fewer people are subscribing to newspapers, book sales are slowing, and all in favour of e-books, PDF files and Kindle gadgets. And it is likely to keep evolving as technology continues to advance.
Melissa Koh
In Ong’s chapter on how writing restructures consciousness, he first mentions the characteristics of writing, and then brings in Plato’s views on writing. Plato’s view was that “writing destroys memory”, and that the written word cannot bring across the original, authentic and true meaning of the spoken word. Ong goes on to talk about how writing is a technology, and that it is artificial because of the different tools needed to write. Additionally, he introduces the different scripts and languages from different cultures, and how certain languages such as Chinese and Korean were developed, which were very interesting to read about.
There are two major developments that affect writing and orality; academic rhetoric and Learned Latin/languages. Rhetoric was the art of public speaking for persuasion or exposition, while learned languages were a result of writing and schooling. A criticism of learned languages was that the education system was dominated by males, hence Learned Latin was ‘sex-linked’; written and spoken only by males.
Furthermore, orality was seen as tenacious, and the transition from orality to literacy took quite a long period of time to fully establish. Rhetoric and Latin slowly died out because of this transition and thus led to the increase of women in the field of academia.
Zheng Wei
Reading Chartier and Gonzalez’s “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader”, two previous readers immediately came to mind. First is McLuhan idea of the medium is the message, which Chartier seems to have been influenced by. He talks about how a book or written material is a social construction, it’s form is not static or natural. He gives the example of how plays are written where small changes had significant effects on how it is read – “a new readability was created by a format easier to handle and by a layout that reproduced in the book something of the movement of the actual production.”
Related to this is White’s reading in week 3, “The Technical Act”. Here too, there is the idea that small changes can lead to drastic changes. Hence Chartier describes how this idea has actual consequences on how books on made and how they are interpreted.
One interesting topic that could be explored is what Chartier will think of e-books. I feel that e-books lose their uniqueness that different printings and editions of books provides. In a way, the books’ form is melded into the reading device like the Kindle or iPad – all of which have generally the same form. Does this have any implications on how audiences perceive the book?
In “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader” Chartier speaks of how all written work is a form of social construction. He asserts that the form in which the text is presented in will affect the way we approach and intepret it.
Indeed ,this ties in with the concept brought about by McLuhan – “The medium is the message”.
Especially in today’s world, whereby written material can be expressed in many different forms. A prose, printed in a hardcover book, compared to one seen on the Internet, elicits different sentiments from its reader. One could even argue that even within different mediums, variations on their intepretations exist – the same content presented in The Daily Tribune will have a much different intepretation when done so on Cracked.com.
For Ong, writing restructures consciousness. Written work has a certain kind of authority. However, the author is displaced in writing versus speech. Writing is not only detached from author but also from human touch because it is in print. Writing is very conscious as it is more rule-oriented. This allows for a standardization – eg. alphabetization. Writing has a more democratic function as the contents and thoughts can get disseminated to more people. Writing allows for separation of sound from idea and from the ideator.
For Chartier, we have to think of language, speech as power and capital. We have to look at how different people interpret different things differently by looking at the text, its form and the reader’s background and social attributes.
I would actually be inclined to agree with what Ong has mentioned about codes encrypted within texts.
“With writing or script in this full sense, encoded visible markings engage words fully so that the exquisitely intricate structures and references evolved in sound can visibility recorded exactly their specific complexity and, because visibly recorded, can implement production of still more exquisite structures and references, far surpassing the potential of oral utterance” – Ong
From my understanding of this phrase, the author is trying to say that texts are beyond just oral communication and not serving merely the function of telling a message. There is a more complex relationship within the texts, the writer and the reader, based upon their different social experiences. Does anyone else have the experience of their mind unconsciously formulating an image of the sender when reading the formal emails in their NTU account like I do? Though we may not have seen the actual person but we would actually have an impression that they would be typing the email in a formal setting – in the office or in the study environment. However, who knows that they might be sending the email in an unexpected environment, perhaps during the time when they are in need of the toilet? Well, if the image of the sender sending the email in toilet comes into your mind naturally, it is likely that you have done such thing before – that such social experience is no stranger to you and it has been engraved into your mind which allows you to formulate the code of the texts beyond just the language conveyed by the it. =)
The transformation from the practice of reading out loud in a group to silent reading could have been brought about by urbanization. Inventions usually arise from needs. Making reading material mobile in paperback or tablet form was probably a need stemmed from the fact that people in modern societies are often in a rush. Due to the pressure to make the most out of one’s time, reading is often done while doing something else, like traveling, baking, doing the laundry etc. Therefore, the process of reading has changed dramatically as we are often interrupted in the middle of the text. This reminds us of Enzensberger’s idea on how new media is oriented towards action, not contemplation. It is difficult to analyze texts while multitasking.
Ong suggests that speech comes to us naturally. Speech is unconscious, while writing is conscious. However in many situations, speech is conscious when we are forced to speak in a particular manner. Several examples include: during an interview, giving an important presentation, talking to a foreigner or serving a customer. In such situations, one may not always be free to express himself in the manner most comfortable to him, but rather, one that is expected of him. When memorizing scripts during a presentation, the presenter recites from his memory something that he wrote. In these cases, speech could almost be as conscious and structured as writing. When writing in a diary, one can write as though he is speaking to himself. Thus it cannot be clearly distinguished whether a form of expression is conscious. Writing allows passing ideas to find permanence, and some of these ideas inspire debates, causing us to challenge assumptions in the society. Having a written text means we can read the same thing over and over, and this gives us time to fully understand and form our own response. Therefore, like Ong, I disagree with Plato that writing alienates us from our soul, but rather, I think it allows us to connect with it.
In the reading by Walter Ong, it is mentioned that Plato criticises writing, such as being dehumanizing and that it destroys memory.
However, I feel that his view of writing is too one-dimensional. Without writing, how could the works of Plato be read and experienced today? Writing can be said to be one of the main catalysts for the development of modern society.
Ong also mentioned that writing is ‘artificial’, and I feel that with digital media today, this ‘artificiality’ has increased even more. Everyone’s handwriting is increasingly replaced by computerised fonts etc. To convey emotions, people use the same emoticons in texts and emails. While technology has made man closer to one another, it can be said to have also made us more and more similar to each other.
We will usually associate a book with the author rather than the publisher. After all, authors write books, isn’t it? A line in Chartier’s article thus immediately caught my eye. ‒“Authors do not write books… Rather they write texts.”
The forms in which texts and words are presented to the reader affect how readers approach and interact with the text. Yet, it is easy to overlook that authors do not decide the layout and presentation of their text. Publishers and printing houses play a greater role in making that decision, hence shaping the mode of reading. Authors decide the content and style of text; publishers however, have the overarching power to control how texts are presented. Power relations play a crucial role in shaping reader’s interaction with technology and media.
The constraints and agendas of publishers pertaining to how a particular text should be arranged and presented reflect how we are inadvertently and possibly subliminally affected by the decisions of publishers. The placement of advertisements and major news stories in newspaper is a result of careful consideration of the editorial team. The news stories on the front page above the fold contain what media editors deem the most important news of the day. These cover stories are what the gatekeepers think the public should find important, not necessarily what we would find important.
However, as Herman and Chomsky argue, the bureaucratic affinity that news media share with the state and powerful corporations will result in media biases. This is so not only in terms of the news content, but also as a result of the news layout. News media can determine how easy it is for the public to read a particular story through the placement and layout of the text, headlines, the page and section it is published on, whether there are accompanying photos et cetera.
The Straits Times for instance, was lambasted by online media for showing biasness towards the incumbent party through its news layout for the coverage of the 2011 general election. This proves that the form of the text does indeed make a difference.
Walter J. Ong talks about the evolution of different mediums and how these mediums shape the communications process. It explains that texts has somewhat been transformed through the ages, into something of immeasurable complexity and inbuilt with the capacity to manipulate the masses. He also says that since the advent of writing, forms of communication and the reception of information has been greatly altered. The subjectivity of the interpretation of texts makes it contentious. Chartier says that an interpretation of a text “is not already inscribed in a text… a text does not exist except for a reader who gives it significance”. Furthermore, drawing reference to what Ong says about autonomy, it is not always possible for the reader to decipher the true meaning of the texts fully because he does not know the context in which the author is writing. Other factors such as the socio-cultural context, the time period, literacy rates etc. come into play when someone is interpreting a certain text. In addition, there is a certain marginalisation effect of texts as well. It is simpler to reproduce texts than speech and thus, a large number of people are able view texts in a shorter period of time. Hence, propaganda thrives through the usage of text. In essence, sociocultural constructions could perhaps be said to be linked to technological determinism.
We often fail to draw the link between literature (and its different forms) and society. In his book, Hoggart referred good literature as ‘recreating the wholeness of life, the life of emotion and object-laden world’. Literary entails styles and genres and traditions of culture. The different types of writing; be it novels or poems, releases its meanings and is subjective to different individuals. It is often the case where the type of writing tells which era and time the author is writing in. In modern culture, we see the emergence of popular mass art, coupled with the advent of technology and new mediums of transmission. Mass art can be explained simply in economic and commercial terms, where the direction of the art is dependent on an advertiser’s decision. Art is therefore, recreated to suit the tastes and demands of the audience.
Hoggart talks about paying attention to little details such as individual words and images, syntax; the literary critic can make assumptions about each author’s sense to his audience and society. In mass art, the differences in layout and style in which the art is presented to us, would affect our perceptions. Take for example; the layout of print-advertisements would entail bright colors and eye-catching phrases, to get the attention of consumers. The study of literary has allowed us to study how writing could be presented and which would appeal to a numerous different groups of people.
In Chartier’s Laborers and Voyagers: from the text to the reader, he discussed how readers are similar to voyagers where we explore different lands that don’t belong to us. Similarly, we read books, articles that are written by the authors and understand the ideas within these texts. Chartier talked about the importance of the layout of the text and how it is presented to the readers. He talked about the mundane changes found in the layout which has since significantly change the way people read. The content of the book or the text might be important, but the layout of the text is also equally or even more important to contribute to the wholeness of the experience. I agree with what Chartier says here. In fact, I avoid reading certain books despite the fact that the content has been given good review simply because I was not used to or dislike the layout of the text. One example is James Patterson’s books. There are a lot of chapters in his books and the the numbers of chapters deter me from enjoying reading the book. This cause me to avoid his books despite the fact that I like reading crime novels. Furthermore, the importance of layout is seen in many medium where we are exposed to. We watch movies not just because the story plot interests us,but because the actors’ and actresses’ acting skills are good, the effects are awesome and the trailers attract our attention. How these movies are publicized also affect whether we want to watch it. Hence, I find that what Chartier raised is not only sound but especially valid in our society where many corporations invest billions of dollars to package their products, their service to attract audiences instead of just focusing on raising the quality of their content.
Walter Ong asserts that writing restructures the way human organizes thought, or in his term, consciousness. Ong argues for the merits of writing against the dismissive view of Plato. Plato, who is a believer that speech brings forth the essence of human inner being, contend that writing is artificial and that it degrades and weakens the mind since individuals can now rely on physical written records rather than putting them into memory. In addition, Plato also argues that writing has changed the dynamics of social interaction where the authors are physically absent in the communication process, which is further problematized in terms of clarification of doubts and queries by the reader. Ong presents an alternative view when he defines writing as a form of technology (entailing the extensive use of tools). He makes a stance that while writing is artificial, it is not necessarily dehumanizing – with particular reference to musical instruments, Ong challenges that technology enhances human potentials and heightens consciousness.
Writing, as Ong argues, is a representation of an utterance. Put differently, words is a system of codes that translate what the writers want to say from audio to visual form, and with high level of accuracy. Ong makes a claim that Greek alphabetical system played a pivotal role in the transformation of human history. Due to its simplicity and coherence, Greek alphabet is widely taught, learned, interiorized and used – it is both democratic and international. Juxtaposing writing and speech, Ong highlights that the former allows for better structure and precision – one can order a set of random and disorganized thoughts into a coherent flow and can erase and make correction to a piece of writing. Writing and written records then took on an authoritative role, and continues to grow in significant in the rational-legal bureaucratic society today. Ong makes another assertion that because the author is physically absent in the process of conveying messages or information, one has to be conscientious in the choice of words and use of punctuation to represent what they want to say as fully as they can. In Ong’s term, the author has to fictionalize the reader and vice versa. Writing (and as for reading) while is an individual activity, is henceforth simultaneous social.
Roger Chartier makes similar claim as Ong in a double sense. First, Chartier argues that books are not written by authors, but are the products of “the publishers’ decision or the constraints of the printing house” (p.53). Second, he claims that reading is a social activity: “Reading is not only an abstract operation of the intellect: it puts the body into play and is inscribed within a particular space, in a relation to the self or to others” (p.53). The undergirding premise of Chartier’s assertion is the introduction and proliferation of print technology. He claims that print technology has altered the mode of reference and interpretation; print technology is a precursor for what the modern society has been practicing – silent reading. In the pre-print era, reading was done aloud; reading is a form of socialization where the literate communicate with the illiterate by vocalizing the visual. However, this habit is discarded with the advent of mechanical reproducibility where a text can be copied easily in mass quantity. The ease of reproducing text allows for (and perhaps necessitate) the better organization of text and the simplification of content so that it can be read by a wider audience. In a different light, this resonates Ong’s assertion that writing is equalizing in nature, which allows for democratic distribution and accessibility. This transformation nevertheless impacted the way society organizes itself. With books make affordable and accessible to anyone, reading is no longer a collective activity but an individual one; reading aloud is replaced by silent reading.
Reading the articles this week, the reemergence of typography came to my mind (despite its existence in ancient history). Typography in contemporary society can be seen through various aspects such as fashion, posters and advertisements. We often see a combination of different words, styles, colors and shapes to form an image or a text (Google images: typography). With this simple manipulation, producers are able to capture greater attention from the masses. Typography is also an extension of a company’s brand where a particular font or typeface is associated with the company’s logo. Imagine if the McDonalds sign or Coca-cola logo we see everyday is in another font like comic sans. We might have a different perception or idea of the product, whether we are familiar with it or otherwise.
Something that I found interesting in Chartier’s reading, was his re-examination and proposal of modifications to the studying of the historical context of reading practices, and the actual act of reading itself. This can be seen in the points below.
1. “recognition” – of the inevitable existing social divisions
2. “reconstruct” – of the operations (historically and socially) put in place with regards to accessing texts.
3. “insist” – that a mandatory distinction is to be made between the intentions of the author (strategies of writing) vis-à-vis the publisher and the printing house’s methods for consumer targeting.
These proposed modifications, establishes the criticality Chartier had in view of the modernized relations between the text, book and reader.
The triangular relation highlights one of interdependency between the 3 factors, which is a notable aspect in understanding how writings and books can be critically studied and analyzed as forms of media in the social context.
Firstly, intersectionality between the book, the reader and the socio-economical relation, is suggested by Chartier to be over-focused upon in the study. The recognition that he poses, is in lieu to the fact that having access/lack thereof to the book, and one’s social class (the social divide) is inevitably true. However, it is via these presented differentiations, that one can use the information efficiently in studying how such situations affect the actual act of reading itself (being “apprehended, handled, and understood” differently). Thus, recognition here, is instead of criticizing merely the inequality presented, one should learn to study the presented inequality and understand the social impacts it has on the transmission quality of information to the masses. He further points out the neglecting of other socio-factors, such as Gender, Religion, Cultural traditions, etc. which should be taken into consideration too.
Secondly, interdependency is formed between the text and the reader, via his proposed “reconstructing” of the foundation behind the understanding texts. He mentions re-discovering past forgotten gestures and habits that have been replaced over the years. Thus, the relation formed is one whereby, readers are encouraged to go back to “one’s roots”, and encouraged to take up the study of once historically valued actions potentially providing access to more text, or being able to take away more from studying a single text. This is in contrast to the limitations of the categorized specifications put in place in texts today.
Lastly, his call for discernment via “insisting” for a distinction to be made between intentions of the author and the publisher/printing house, highlights the transactional process between the text, the book and how it will similarly affect the reader. “Authors do not write books”. Here, the Author’s texts are engineered according to the Publisher/organization’s wishes, commoditized in the form of a book. It is interesting to note that there is a sense of “double subjectivity/interpretation” going on, whereby, not only is the text subjective to the reader’s interpretation, but so is the book. Chartier mentions the changing of the “mode of reading (causing)… diverse meaning to the same text”. Thus the distinction made between the Author and the Publisher produce separate meanings, that would be both useful for the reader in studying not only the act of reading, but even the historical contexts of which.
In sum, this triangular relationship between the text, book and reader is one of importance, and pertinently useful in the studying of how printed forms is used in the relaying of information/ building communication networks.
Hoggart mentions that ‘good literature recreates the experiential wholeness of life’. This got me thinking about Walter Benjamin’s notion of ‘aura’. Aura is the presence of the object, its uniqueness in time and space and a sense of distance between the user and the work of art. No matter how perfect the image of the maintain range is, it is still not the same as witnessing it within its nature. Although text and images both use the sense of sight, a literary work is fundamentally different from a piece of art. There is no sense of elusiveness in literature. Writings bring the reader into the author’s world of ‘individual and social meanings’.
I argue that works of literature have their own aura embedded in the meaning of the text. As Roger Chartier mentions, ‘meaning depends upon the forms through which they are received and appropriated by their readers’. Hence, each work of literature has the ‘authenticity’ aspect of aura in that every author tells their own, unique story. Each writing is made authentic in its tone, manner and language. Hence, I feel works of literature do not lose their aura even after it is mechanically reproduced as the meaning within the text still remains.
After I completed the reading, “Laborers and Voyages: From the Text to the Reader” by Roger Chartier, there were two points that stood out particularly for me. One was that the interpretation of a text “is not already inscribed in the text” and that a text “does not exist except for a reader who gives it signification”. What I understood by it was that texts are subjected to varying interpretations on the basis of the reader’s own knowledge and understanding, and I thought that perhaps this could be applied to the reading and understanding of religious texts, like the Bible. For instance, many argue that there are passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that condemn homosexual acts, while others claim that the rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality at all. And these varying interpretations pose a very big problem, considering many LGBT laws in the US are upheld because of the preservation of religiously conservative views.
The other interesting point that stood out for me, was the continued revolution in the “techniques of textual reproduction” from scribal culture (which is defined by the written or physical conveying of ideas) to print culture (which embodies all printed forms of visual communication). It is true that it is continuously evolving, because since the advent of electronic tablets, fewer people are subscribing to newspapers, book sales are slowing, and all in favour of e-books, PDF files and Kindle gadgets. And it is likely to keep evolving as technology continues to advance.
In Ong’s chapter on how writing restructures consciousness, he first mentions the characteristics of writing, and then brings in Plato’s views on writing. Plato’s view was that “writing destroys memory”, and that the written word cannot bring across the original, authentic and true meaning of the spoken word. Ong goes on to talk about how writing is a technology, and that it is artificial because of the different tools needed to write. Additionally, he introduces the different scripts and languages from different cultures, and how certain languages such as Chinese and Korean were developed, which were very interesting to read about.
There are two major developments that affect writing and orality; academic rhetoric and Learned Latin/languages. Rhetoric was the art of public speaking for persuasion or exposition, while learned languages were a result of writing and schooling. A criticism of learned languages was that the education system was dominated by males, hence Learned Latin was ‘sex-linked’; written and spoken only by males.
Furthermore, orality was seen as tenacious, and the transition from orality to literacy took quite a long period of time to fully establish. Rhetoric and Latin slowly died out because of this transition and thus led to the increase of women in the field of academia.
Reading Chartier and Gonzalez’s “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader”, two previous readers immediately came to mind. First is McLuhan idea of the medium is the message, which Chartier seems to have been influenced by. He talks about how a book or written material is a social construction, it’s form is not static or natural. He gives the example of how plays are written where small changes had significant effects on how it is read – “a new readability was created by a format easier to handle and by a layout that reproduced in the book something of the movement of the actual production.”
Related to this is White’s reading in week 3, “The Technical Act”. Here too, there is the idea that small changes can lead to drastic changes. Hence Chartier describes how this idea has actual consequences on how books on made and how they are interpreted.
One interesting topic that could be explored is what Chartier will think of e-books. I feel that e-books lose their uniqueness that different printings and editions of books provides. In a way, the books’ form is melded into the reading device like the Kindle or iPad – all of which have generally the same form. Does this have any implications on how audiences perceive the book?