The end is near, but not yet here
What does the future hold for text-based modes of communication? Is the late age of print also the late age of prose? Bolter (2001) notes that in both stand-alone multimedia and on the Web, text is often displaced in favour of graphic presentation, and that this trend represents a greater movement away from prose and a movement towards the visual. He also accurately predicts the shifting nature of text in Internet based applications, citing that on the Internet, “electronic mail and newsgroups remain among the most widely used applications. Although these applications have been purely textual, they are not likely to remain so” (72).
It is as if Bolter was able to see a future in which video conferencing applications such as Skype and Google Hangouts reduce the necessity for emails as a primary means of communication, or that large news agencies would include videos on their websites to augment the articles they were reporting on. This last example is significant however, as video and text are co-existing, signifying that the proliferation of multimodality could keep text and prose important, but not the primary means of communication.
The question now becomes: to what extent have modes of communication changed overtime? Kress (2004), explains that communication by its very nature is multimodal, and that each mode available to specific cultures has its pros and cons; which he refers to as “gains and losses”. The argument brought forth by Kress is that “representation and communication are motivated by the social”(ibid), and thus situated in specific cultural and historical contexts. Kress further warns that there exists distinct differences between medium and mode – and in the case of literacy, the decline of the book does not necessitate the end of writing.
In any academic discourse there exist scholars whose opinions on any given matter range on a spectrum and so too it is with the issue of the changing nature of literacy. While some may argue that the late age of print will inexorably mark the end of prosaic writing itself, others strongly disagree. Katherine Hayles (2008) makes a bold prediction that “digital literature will be a significant component of twenty-first century canon”, noting that contemporary literature is largely already digital (186). Furthermore, Hayles claims that literature and writing will thrive in such an environment, and that digitality is much more than simply a mode, but “has become the textual condition of the twenty-first century literature” (ibid).
For those with access, has the emergence of high speed Internet, and the proliferation of mobile devices changed the delivery and assessment of course material in the classroom? Of this there is no doubt. Have a variety of multimedia begun to slowly supplant the hold that traditional textbooks held in classrooms around the developed world? Yes. Has the ‘late age of print’ marked the end of prose? Not yet, but only time will tell.
References:
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 72.
Hayles, K. (2008). Electronic literature: New horizons for the literary. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press. 159 & 186.
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5-22. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
We live in exciting times. I guess! Things are changing. I even believe the user experience we have on the web that is strongly affected by books and the age prior to digital will change. I have been reading about artificial intelligence lately and found very interesting theories that are coming true. Take Siri for example. The Apple digital assistant. It is being use to access different applications from food ordering to maps in order to complete a request without the need for the user to access those applications. Siri will do it for you. This will evolve as soon as the artificial intelligence domain matures. It is very interesting how our interaction with technology will be at that time. Will we read anything anymore? How will software control our opinion and what info we are exposed to. Even though we are getting information pushed to us according to our interest but there is a human side doing the intelligence behind it. But how would that be when its a software’s brain “AI”.
We’ve read a number of times that we are in the “late age of print” but I’m not sure that we really are. By what measure do these people make that claim? I mean is there any quantitative justification to say that? I suspect that this quote “late age of print” is really just someone’s musing. We do not hear much news of libraries closing down or publishers going out of business. What we do see is libraries augmenting their services with technology.
I believe it was Kress that noted that technology has multiplied the use of literacy as people are emailing, blogging, using message forums, composing web pages, text chatting, SMS. According to Kress, this is, for the most part, in addition to what some may consider traditional print literacy. Dobson and Willinsky mentioned that this new technology also comes with a new grammar. This new grammar includes shortened words such as “cu l8tr” that includes numbers. It may include emoticons. It may include abbreviations such as “ttyl” “bbiam” “brb”.
What I am getting at is can this new digital lingo be considered literacy? If there is any kind of conflict between those who DO consider it literacy and those who DO NOT, then is there an agreed definition of literacy? Is it only literacy if its traditional or formal literacy?
I should also mention that earlier in this course, we learned that the codex book added a new grammar to literacy as well. I can only imagine that at the time of the codes, people were questioning if the codex would replace the papyrus scroll and if the codex can be considered literacy. Remember that the codex allowed for a condensed format and thereby allowed new formats such as encyclopaedias. It allowed books to have a functional table of contents, index, references and footnotes on each page. I see similarities between the technology influence of literacy today nad the codex influence on literacy yesterday.
The difference is that technology does not have the same effect on print literature as the codex had on the scroll. I think its safe to say that the codex replaced the scroll. But 30-50 years of technology has not replaced print literature. As an interesting comparison, I would say the internal combustion engine has completely replaced the steam engine. However despite much hype and people’s prediction in the 1990’s that the electric car will replace the gas powered engine by 2020, it doesn’t appear to be happening.