I've begun to read a couple of chapters Brave New World, before deciding that I should read such a novel when I have less classes and summer homework to busy me and pull at my mind. Meaning I gave up.
A short time after, I started to read a few chapters of The Shallows, and I must say it's a light read on a repetitive topic that's been drilled into my mind as a young person time and time again. Technology can be bad, but it also can be good. Just like every other invention that's ever existed. I apologize to all the 'bring back all generations before generation Y, as if they didn't have far more insanely controversial problems of their own' supporters. Choosing to despise the world that you've inevitably been chosen to live with for the rest of your life is good, I guess.
I'm not saying I don't respect this book. In fact, it enlightened me on something that isn't about media or getting your mind to focus. I noticed that after reading this and Brave New World, I've divided writers as advanced as Aldous Huxley and Nicholas Carr into two different categories; poets and enlighteners. While these terms can be used interchangeably, I think that they're well-suited. While Huxley uses a writing style so vivid and obviously well educated in the sciences (or just very imaginative), Carr chose to write a book that would make people either open their eyes or slam them shut, writing in a more persuasive way possibly with hopes of changing people's minds. For some people, reading a novel that even remotely involves complex information involving technology can seem as foreign as reading books like A Clockwork Orange or Alice in Wonderland. Poetry is all about foreign format. But Huxley expressed his creativity and writing style in a way that is not poetry- as a story teller. He wrote in a "that could mean a thousand different things" kind of way, a poetic story of the most unique kind. While all writers are, most beautifully, poets themselves, I believe The Shallows is a book that was meant more to enlighten than to express. It's obvious what Carr's intentions were when he wrote this book, and writing in such a way is a bold move. While some people can put this book down feeling new and intrigued, others like me can put it down and react negatively like I previously did. Every single writing style is unique, and, in my opinion, equally effective. Writing can be so many things to the writers themselves, or to students like us who are left to take a piece literature and decipher it in a way our teacher will approve. Writing in any form is clearly an art of expression and enlightenment.
I am pretty confident that Nicholas Carr would not consider himself a poet; he's a journalist, and he's using the English language to write about a complex subject that he has thoroughly researched. He's certainly not a cranky old person who is complaining about technology because he despises the world. What evidence supports the claim that he despises the world?
ReplyDeleteWell I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out that Carr chose a more clear and informative way to make people think, while Huxley chose a way that has to be more evaluated. Yes, Carr is a journalist whereas Huxley is an author, but they both had a similar result: expressing new ideas and opening minds. However I have to agree with you on my word choice. I could have chosen a better term than poetry for the point I was trying to make- maybe thoughtful emoting or creative writing.
ReplyDeleteI was also trying to point out the people I see tweeting about how bad twitter is, or taking the time out of their day to take pictures on their iphones of other people taking selfies with some snarky remark about how disappointing our generation is. In no way was I talking about Carr himself despising the world, but how the ideas that Carr represents can be taken in one of two ways. There's the way that Carr most likely intended his ideas to be taken, as eye-opening and helpful, or the way that makes people fill with negativity. I do enjoy this book, and it has some good points that I can look back to. But Carr despising the young world and being a poet was not the point I was trying to make. I hope this sort of clears that up.
I hate to get all persnickety about this, because YOU may misinterpret my motives -- I like it that you are writing, that you are pushing back, and I am happy you are clarifying. But my role as your teacher is to say, I did not misinterpret what you said. You criticized Carr for not having a poet's sensibility, and you implied that he despised the world.
ReplyDeleteSo MY purpose and my role is to point out that you are a writer, writing in public forum, and you said these things:
"While all writers are, most beautifully, poets themselves..." and "I apologize to all the 'bring back all generations before generation Y, as if they didn't have far more insanely controversial problems of their own' supporters. Choosing to despise the world that you've inevitably been chosen to live with for the rest of your life is good, I guess." There is no way anyone could have known you were referring to other people being snarky on the social networks about your generation.
So, I did not misinterpret you. I read what you wrote. This is how you move from one place to the next as a writer. You start to consider what you mean, and then you work hard to say it in the clearest, cleanest language possible.
Clarity IS beauty. It's what we work towards. It doesn't happen automatically. It takes effort.
And again, "Carr is a journalist whereas Huxley is an author..." I know what you are working towards, and I know what you're saying, but only because I am reaching for you. Journalists ARE authors too.
The point that you are making is that Carr is writing an expository argument -- it is nonfiction. Within those parameters, he is using all of the tools ALL writers use: metaphor, analogy, figurative language. The best arguments are beautifully written too. Huxley is writing creative fiction -- imaginative. But see, to make that dystopian world believable, he relies on science, and fact, and logic. Isn't that kind of cool? The nonfiction writer uses language that is beautiful, and the imaginative fiction writer uses language that seeks to be scientific and factual.
What it comes down to Hanna is this: what is their purpose for writing? Who is their audience? What means do they have at their disposal to achieve their purposes? This is really the focus of AP English Language.
Finally, all writers risk rejection of their ideas. But if people fill with negativity at the introduction of an idea they do not like, that is not Carr's problem. Carr's role is to be clear, and to provide enough evidence to be credible and trustworthy. If a reader fills with negativity, that is really just the reader, closing their mind, and that is certainly their choice.