Reading is FUNdamental. Or something. Whatevs.

[deborah]

I find that, perhaps because of my profession or because my home has enough books to provide structural support, people tend to assume that I will agree with the sentiment "But at least they are reading!" For the record, I don't. I don't see any intrinsic value in reading, per se. I know plenty of people who read and gain nothing from it. I know plenty of people who spend substantially more time online or watching television and gain as much from those tasks as others do from reading, or more.

Here's what I do see value in:

• The mechanics of reading: I'll readily admit that the mechanics of being able to read, basic literacy in the reader's home's language, is exceptionally valuable, but its value can be overstated. Here's a hint: if you are looking for intellectual, thoughtful participants in society, literature, and the media who don't have access to the basic mechanics of looking at letters and deciphering them, you need look no further than your nearest friend who is blind or visually impaired (I know, I'm ignoring braille). I won't deny that it's much easier to get by if you can decipher letters on the page/screen, but it's patently not necessary. I say this as a reminder to myself as much as anyone. Why did I have no problem with a student using audio books when the student had a registered disability, and yet I had a gut negative reaction when a student with no registered disability mentioned to me that she was listening to the assigned reading on her iPod? If I think that the reading experience for the student with the disability was as valid and as rich when she used the audio books, why should I think that experience would be any the less for the able-bodied student? This is not to say that I think that people who have the ability to learn the mechanics needn't do so; of course I think they ought to. But we need to have more respect for other forms of consuming texts, such as audio.


• Literacy in a second language, spoken and preferably written: Like many Anglophones, I actually don't have this one. I wish English-speaking countries had more respect for the importance of bilingualism. I'm not going to say that bilingualism automatically makes people less chauvinistic. But still, having more than one language increases your capacity for being able to understand other cultural perspectives.


• The ability to understand, critically engage with, and discuss fiction and nonfiction texts: Where by "texts" I mean books, newspapers, television shows, commercials, movies, and Internet materials. All of these types of texts participate in the construction of our society.


• The ability to enjoy nonfiction and fiction texts: I believe that the ability to enjoy fiction enriches a reader's ability to posit hypotheticals. I believe that the ability to enjoy nonfiction increases a reader's willingness to learn about the world. Note that I am not privileging any type of text; I don't see more intrinsic value to enjoying John McPhee's The Control of Nature, an episode of Discover, or a stellar piece of investigative journalism.


• The ability to distinguish among the different genre characteristics of the media consumed : Note that I am not saying that readers need to prefer high quality to trash, just that they need to be able to distinguish between them. The reasons for this are more obvious with nonfiction. If a reader can't distinguish between nuanced nonfiction and tabloid journalism, she'll be easily deceived. This doesn't mean it's not okay to enjoy tabloid journalism (or junky television, or pulp novels). But a reader who can distinguish what the characteristics are of the media she's consuming will be better able to critically engage.

The upshot of all of this is that someone who cares passionately about, say, So You Think You Can Dance, The Babysitters Club, Slashdot, Buffy, and The New York Post, thinks about them all critically, and discusses them with other people who think about them critically, is likely to be a better thinker and more informed participant in society than somebody who sits at home statically consuming the latest Booker prize winner without any further thought or discussion.

Comments

[ayelle]

Have you read my post about this? http://writinghood.livejournal.com/1605.html

I made the mistake of mentioning to a Simmons ChLit professor that I was doing some of the reading for her class via audiobook, and was a bit shocked by her strong negative reaction. And I *did* have a registered disability -- and that disability was actually the reason I was listening to audiobooks. Because my depression was so bad it affected my ability to concentrate in some ways, and audiobooks helped. (But of course that was the wrong kind of disability to explain why I would need to be listening to audiobooks. I wasn't visually impaired, nor did I even have some kind of easily-understood cognitive impairment like dyslexia. I didn't have much trouble reading, actually -- I had trouble doing anything OTHER than reading or listening, and badly needed to be doing one or the other 100% of the time in order to remain sane. I couldn't be alone in my head at any time, was the problem, or I'd break down crying...)

But everything about my experience of disability at Simmons ended up being very, very negative, in the end. (Well, except for meeting Todd because of the disability workshop I did when I worked as a tutor at the incredibly awesome Academic Services Department, and the fact that I learned that my depression actually *was* a considered a disability, and that's actually where my mind opened up and I started learning to think in brand new ways about disability AT ALL. That was good. But it's also kind of painful to learn about the discrimination all around you that you used to not know was there and blame on yourself... ANYWAY.)