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