undefined | Better HN

0 pointsryao1y ago0 comments

Such sentiments have been expressed so many times that I have lost track of all of the times variations on them have been expressed. I think it started with Socrates who claimed the written word would damage human recall. When nobody believed him and he became popular because of the written word, people inverted “literacy is bad” into “literacy is good”. In more recent times, I believe radio and TV were said to be the start of modern illiteracy.

By the way, for what it is worth, only 2% of the population can read at a college level. It had been that way for so long that I heard that the category was merged into the high school level several years ago to make the literacy rate in the top bracket 4% instead of the prior 2%. i.e. “modern illiteracy” started a long time ago if we go by numbers.

0 comments

dasil0031y ago

Maybe Socrates was correct? I certainly think Google has damaged my memory, or maybe just age, hard to say.

ryaoOP1y ago

Who knows? The guy was not a really good teacher. His student Plato ignored the meaning of what he said about learning to write a book on it. A major point of the book was that reading the book was pointless because it was a form of sophism.

Before I am downvoted into oblivion, the above text is half joking and half serious. Socrates in Plato’s Republic really does make the case that formal training via methods intended to teach is pointless by comparing education to training horses. I made that point in my college philosophy class hoping the professor would skip it on the basis that it was a bad book (my thoughts on a book that suggested you could not learn its material by being lead to it - see the cave analogy). The professor then stopped the entire class to try to make sure everyone understood the point and then continued as if the material was not criticizing him.

lupusreal1y ago

Probably so. Socrates witnessed the end of the Athenian Golden Age during his lifetime.

FrustratedMonky1y ago

Yes. People forget that Charles Dickens was considered trash, pulp, un-intellectual. That people were reading such trash would lead to the downfall of civilization. Basically what everyone says today about whatever latest media type.

GeoAtreides1y ago

You lie:

"From the beginning of his career in the 1830s, his achievements in English literature were compared to those of Shakespeare."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Reputation

FrustratedMonky1y ago

lie is really strong term in this case.

in his time he was not 'literature', it was pulp, common, 'popular'.

is Stephen King today, 'literature' or just 'pulp fiction'?

this is a subjective thing. authors that are 'popular' sometimes aren't considered 'literature'.

in your very own citation:::

"Among fellow writers, there was a range of opinions on Dickens. Poet laureate, William Wordsworth (1770–1850), thought him a "very talkative, vulgar young person", adding he had not read a line of his work, while novelist George Meredith (1828–1909), found Dickens "intellectually lacking"."

"Henry James denied him a premier position, calling him "the greatest of superficial novelists":

92834092321y ago

Literacy rates have fallen in the past 20 years and something tells me that Dickens is not responsible.

FrustratedMonky1y ago

The point is, that when Charles Dickens came out, people also blamed him on lowering the literacy rate. Called something different back then.

But maybe, it's not population wide.

More people were reading Dickens, so rate of reading in population was increasing. But the elites that thought everything should be in Greek/Latin, thought everyone reading Dickens was a downgrade.

Every generation argument.

Weren't Egyptian hieroglyphs basically emoji's.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dasil0031y ago

Maybe Socrates was correct? I certainly think Google has damaged my memory, or maybe just age, hard to say.

ryaoOP1y ago

lupusreal1y ago

Probably so. Socrates witnessed the end of the Athenian Golden Age during his lifetime.

FrustratedMonky1y ago

GeoAtreides1y ago

You lie:

"From the beginning of his career in the 1830s, his achievements in English literature were compared to those of Shakespeare."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Reputation

FrustratedMonky1y ago

lie is really strong term in this case.

in his time he was not 'literature', it was pulp, common, 'popular'.

is Stephen King today, 'literature' or just 'pulp fiction'?

this is a subjective thing. authors that are 'popular' sometimes aren't considered 'literature'.

in your very own citation:::

"Henry James denied him a premier position, calling him "the greatest of superficial novelists":

92834092321y ago

Literacy rates have fallen in the past 20 years and something tells me that Dickens is not responsible.

FrustratedMonky1y ago

The point is, that when Charles Dickens came out, people also blamed him on lowering the literacy rate. Called something different back then.

But maybe, it's not population wide.

More people were reading Dickens, so rate of reading in population was increasing. But the elites that thought everything should be in Greek/Latin, thought everyone reading Dickens was a downgrade.

Every generation argument.

Weren't Egyptian hieroglyphs basically emoji's.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse