BURNINGBIRD
a node at the edge  


May 21, 2002
ConnectingTapping Fingers

Jonathon references an article by Judith Shulevitz about the One Book, One City program -- an effort to foster interest in reading and communal togetherness by assigning a book to a community with encouragement to "...stop others on the sidewalk to chat informally about the book, and to attend one of the many planned events around town."

In her article, Shulevitz argues that ...literature does not make us or our society better as a refutation of the premise behind the program.

I agree completely with Shulevitz -- literature doesn't make 'society' better. Society is a mob on the perpetual edge of riot and anarchy saved only by laws enacted to ensure the survival of the maximum number of those most compliant. Society is nothing more than a breeding ground of mediocrity.

Damn that was that fun to write! I love nothing more than to respond in my most over-the-top manner to even the simplest written statement, and Shulevitz's assumptions are anything but simple. Brain cells and tapping fingers, be thy most wicked selves.

I wrote in the comments attached to Jonathon's posting (corrected for usual Bb typos):

    Reading is probably our most important expression of individuality. What we read, when, and how we respond to what we read is a process that begins within our minds as we pursue the word across the page. Even when we attend a public reading, the words are thrown out into the audience -- it's up to the individual to determine how to catch them, play with them.

    To throw all of this into a communal improvement exercise? Bah!

Dorothea argues most eloquently in reply by saying:

    Problem two is Burningbird's assumption (certainly a reasonable reading of Shulevitz) that reading is always and inevitably an individual action. Perhaps. But discussing reading is social. Choosing books is *very* social; I get most of my book recommendations from people, not bibliographies. Reading aloud is social. Surely these activities are good-social, worth pursuing? But Shulevitz is willing to trash them.

    I don't approve. I can't. I had rather see people read and talk and read and talk some more.

I believe that Dorothea and I are in agreement, about reading if not about article or the One City, One Book program.

There is a social aspect to reading -- receiving recommendations from friends and admired strangers as well as the interaction of people discussing a work they either loath or love. And books can make a better person hence there is a benefit, indirectly, to society.

(However, I have found that it is usually only an open mind that hears the message of the material; the material doesn't necessarily create new pathways as much as it uses existing ones in new ways.)

Outside of the requirements of academia, though, the action of seeking a book, making the choice, and opening and reading the book is based on an individual's interest and inclination. Once read, it is the individual who them must decide whether they loath or love the work enough to discuss it with others.

The most interesting discussions about a creative work -- book or article, photograph or painting -- occur in a group made of people with strongly individual views of the work. The participation that formed in Jonathon's comments related to the Shulevitz article is an example of such a group.

As for One City, One Book: I can think of nothing more off putting than to be walking down the street, thoughts engaged elsewhere and to be stopped and asked my opinion of "Jim the Boy". Or to be given the impression that it's my civic responsibility to read "Jim the Boy" and to attend community meetings to discuss it.

Shades of "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451"! Even though the latter is based on book burning, the premise really is on group thinking. One City, One Book -- might as well call it "groupthink" and be done with it.

As much as I love books and as much as I love to read, I can't agree with using a combination of hip marketing and subtle group coercion to attempt to engender an appreciation of either books or community in others.



Posted by Bb at May 21, 2002 10:31 AM




Comments

Then... what are we supposed to use, if marketing and peer pressure are off limits?

:)

Posted by: Dorothea on May 21, 2002 12:32 PM

Care giver hands wonderful book with words and everything to small child while simultaneously turning off:

Computer
Nintendo
Sony PlayStation
Cell phone
Pager
CD Player
MP3 Player
Television

-- it's novel, but it might work ;-)

Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on May 21, 2002 01:51 PM

There is a difference, for me, between getting a recommendation from a trusted friend or respected colleague as compared to being told by the powers that be that I should read a book. When someone who knows and loves me as a person thinks something will matter to me, it's a compliment, and I think that's why so many people reject the insidious new marketing techniques of total penetration (false message board postings, for example, or planting promotions whores in teenage hangouts in disguise).

Posted by: steve on May 21, 2002 03:42 PM

There were never any whores hanging out when I was a teenager.

I might have read more.

Posted by: Shannon on May 21, 2002 06:05 PM

I haven't participated in the "if the city read one book" program, though it did start in Seattle. But surely it's entirely voluntary!

I've heard discussion of the books taking place on our local public radio station, and meetings happen at libraries, but it would be rare for someone to speak to you about it on the street or public transport. People rarely speak to strangers under any circumstances around here!

I don't think of Nancy Pearl, the founder of the program in Seattle, as one of the powers that be -- she's entirely charming on the radio.

Posted by: Anita Rowland on May 21, 2002 06:17 PM

I tend to like this idea as well.

1. It's voluntary.
2. It encourages people to read.

Do you realize how many people I grew up with didn't know how to read in the first place?

I realize in this internet culture - being encouraged to read is kinda rediculous - we're all readers already.

But do you realize how many of my friends won't read newspapers? Or books? They trust what they see in TV and it is their only entertainment and knowledge source?

Sounds crazy - but the majority of people I know live that way.

My ability to read - and the books I've read - have helped me - almost more then any living person - with helping me get off the streets.

If this program helps encourage people to read - and better yet - understand what they read - then it will lead to a better place.

Now the moment they 'encourage' me not to read something...

then I get angry.

Posted by: Karl aka paradox1x on May 22, 2002 03:49 AM

Karl makes a good point: a program like this will encourage people to read who aren't already reading-the safety in numbers was part of what made Oprah successful, after all. People who already read are probably less likely to be interested (and more likely to be cynical and paranoid, like me) because they already have a relationship with books and reading and may not want a third party, however well-intentioned, intruding in that relationship. As Anita said, Nancy Pearl and others start these programs out of good intentions and the intention of increasing literacy. If I choose to focus on the state-building aspects of it and worry about the cultural politics at play (and they are significant) that's fine, but the more people who start reading the better. Even if it makes them less likely to participate in a second 'One City' book.

Posted by: steve on May 22, 2002 04:24 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?