Online, R U Really Reading?

Motoko Rich examines and analyzes different types of literacy in her article, "Online, R U Really Reading." Recently the controversial topic has been brought up of Internet literacy Vs. Book Literacy. Rich acknowledges that the two are very different, each requiring their own sets of skills to interpret and analyze. However, while it may not be clear for some, Rich appears as a very biased writer favoring books over the constantly expanding and advancing internet. Rich refers to anyone reading net works as "Internet junkies", a term that is far from endearing. The journalist also goes to lengths to show how Net savvy students lack major skills in book literacy by citing several state test scores and surveys. In an attempt to discredit the internet even further, Rich shows how some articles online lack proper grammar and other elements associated with the traditional literacy. Motoko contradicts herself completely by judging online works on the same principles as written ones after saying only a bit earlier that they were different. The journalist then gives a weak defense to internet literacy without elaborating past "it's different." Internet works does in fact offer a lot more than Rich gives it credit for.

The traditional literacy is not necessarily wrong. Of course books have some sense of value. They introduce some ideas and help our mind think to an extent. What many feel now though is that it is a complement to what we find online as opposed to a reader's primary and only source. The fact is that Internet is more convenient and easy to use. No one can argue with that. What makes it more appealing is that many different texts can be opened at once, allowing for the reader to digest information from many different perspectives with ease. In the time it takes you to read about a topic from one angle in a novel you can see it from several over the net in concise and very informative articles. Internet works are often interesting and capture the reader as opposed to dull, dry informational texts. Books seem like just a giant bundle of information that lose the reader in their effort to educate them. This effort to inform the reader also tends to lose their interest and takes away from the enjoyable experience of reading that every writer strives for. The internet also offers a way of thinking similar to books yet different at the same time. They use different methods to get the reader to think.

These attacks Rich implements subtly are inaccurate in most cases. Rich states that more than often that writers lack proper grammar online or they are not an authority when it comes to the topic they're talking about. In response, are there not many people who publish bizarre and less than resourceful works? Hitler's Mein Kampf is a written work. Many would argue Hitler is far from an authority on anything. That is just one work. How many more written works are there whose authors are different to say the least? This arguments does not hold validity in solely online articles but all works.

Rich goes on to attack the visuals of online works. Rich states that they're distracting for the reader. This is one of the most inaccurate observations Rich makes. These visuals aid the reader in analyzing the text alongside it. It makes it easier for the reader to understand the work. The same cannot be said about written works like books. The massive "tower" of information intimidates many readers and is likely to encourage them to stop and do something else. Even those who attempt hard to focus on the text will find some concepts difficult to understand and the best option for them is to "Sparknotes" the work to end the struggling. Books actually deter many from reading simply from their appearance.

The last but most inaccurate of all of Rich's arguments was the attempt at stating that online works take away from people's ability to think "outside of the box" and make inferences. Rich briefly discusses fanfiction.net and online anime sites without discussing the fact that the stories and series on these sites allow for readers imaginations to run wild. Writers intentionally make it so that these works have cliffhangers and encourage readers to predict what happens next until the next installment. They leave clues in the work to allow readers to fill in the blanks if they think hard enough.

The article written by Rich tries desperately to give the appearance of liking both written and online texts and treating them as separate entities. In reality Rich favors traditional written works more than online ones and judges them by the same principles. However each has their own set of guidelines and methods. They instill ideas differently for a reader. Finally, no one is more credible than the other. These two sides literacy need to be used in collaboration to educate a reader.