In Johan Lehrer’s “The Future of Reading,” Lehrer expresses
his skepticism regarding the future of reading in a technological standpoint.
Referencing a study performed at the College de France, he reasons that the
e-readers and the act of reading on screens make it too easy to read. The pathway,
known as the dorsal stream, that is active in deciphering textual difficulties
goes unstimulated. These difficulties are what “wakes us up” when we read on
account of the extra cognitive effort. Lehrer’s fear is that over time, readers
will be less likely to “endure harder texts” because they’ve grown accustomed
to the ease of reading on some kind of technological device without the added
activity from their dorsal stream. Since technology will only keep increasing, Lehrer
asks that his fellow e-readers to tweak the settings on their devices in order
to give themselves a challenge.
Starting with the title, Lehrer has adopted a common belief
amongst the reader public, using Bazerman’s fourth level of intertextuality in
which “the text may rely on beliefs, issues, ideas, statements generally
circulated and likely familiar to the readers” (87). Since the birth of
e-readers, there has been a general outcry about the future of reading and
books in general. This also identifies Lehrer’s rhetorical situation.
Grant-Davie describes this as “a situation where a speaker or writer sees a
need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through
rhetorical discourse” (265). Furthermore, the problem in particular, whose
solution lies in rhetorical discourse, is known as exigence. In this example,
the exigence is the future of reading through the use of e-readers, and the
discourse is the discussion created by Lehrer concerning how we read and the
science behind it.
By using Stanislas Dehaene’s study, Lehrer is using one of
Bazerman’s levels in intertexuality in which a text is used as “background,
support, and contrast” (87). He has presented his wariness with e-readers being
the future of reading, and he has used Dehaene’s study to support and emphasize
his argument. This level also utilizes one of Bazerman’s techniques outlined in
intertextual representation, specifically indirect quotation (88). Though
Lehrer doesn’t directly quote Dehaene’s research study, he paraphrases it and
puts it into layman’s terms, explaining any difficult or unfamiliar
terminology.
One of the most important aspects to Lehrer’s article is the
audience and how it functions as a constraint. As defined by Grant-Davie, an
audience consists of “those people, real or imagined, with whom rhetors
negotiate through discourse to achieve the rhetorical objectives” (270). In
this case, the most obvious audience would be readers, more specifically, those
that use e-readers, whether frequently or even occasionally. By specifying the
use of e-readers and other such devices, Lehrer imposes a constraint and it
narrows down the focus of the audience. If someone read the article, but had no
experience or knowledge of e-readers, the depth of the message would most
likely be lost. They wouldn’t possess the comparison of reading a book to
reading an e-book. To further identify the e-reading audience, Lehrer uses
“recognizable kinds of phrasing” (Bazerman, 88). Words such as Kindle and e-ink
may only be decipherable by a particular group of people.
In a metatextual example, Lehrer bemoans the use of screens
for reading, yet he recognizes that he uses the very same technology to write
and read. Even more so, the only way we can access this text is for it to first
be accessed on a screen. If we wanted a hardcopy, either we or someone else
would have to print it out.
Due to his citing of a scientific study, Lehrer’s claims
seem to exist from a logical standpoint. However, from a personal level, I feel
as though I am still challenged, despite using electronic devices as a means of
reading. I prefer books, mainly because of their aesthetic quality. I do own a
Nook and I often use my computer for reading, especially when it comes to
academic reading. I do not feel, in any way, that it hinders me from trying to
tackle more difficult content, though I am interested in seeing how my neural
pathways operate as I’m reading on various mediums.
For the article, "The Future of Reading" by Jonah Lehrer, please visit this link.
0 comments:
Post a Comment