The (lasting?) Value of the Written Word

John Miedema has been making me think again; this time about "the digital vs. print debate." The framework he provides (pic above) and his remarks about longer or shorter-lasting value got this comment out of me:

"short-lived in value" That's been a puzzlement for me for a while now. I put a lot of creative and intellectual energy into blogging. Setting aside considerations of "quality" that's a lot of time and words. But I rarely revisit posts written, say, 6 months. Do I *have* to put it in another format to give it longer-lsting value? Probably. A book on literacy practice, written in 1973, sits on my bedside table. I'm re-reading it, still getting ideas and insight from it. I do no patient re-reading - slow reading - of old posts (mine or anyone else's) at bedtime. Habit? Structure? Are we still a "bookish" culture, unprepared to glean knowledge through other mediums? Is it about convenience? Would a laptop change how and what I read? What's the socio-economic implication? Is "real knowledge" still locked up in corporate-owned and controlled journals and hardcovers? Can the potential leveling impact of the internet, where everyone gets a say, be realized as long as it's only short-term?

I dunno. Maybe I'll go shovel snow and think about it. (But first I'll copy and paste all this to my blog - gotta squeeze value out of these words before they're gone - lol.)

No comments: