"Clive Thompson on the New Literacy" Summary

Rose Anastasio

Mary Hammerbeck

English 100 M

1/10/10

In the article "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy" Thompson supports the results of Andrea Lunsford's study of writing that she conducted over 5 years at Stanford University. Lunsford collected numerous pieces of writing from a diverse group of students and found a similar trend. She is quoted commenting on her findings, "I think we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization." Thompson and Lunsford both agree that the new technologies of the past decade aren't diminishing the quality of the writing we do, it actually is helping increase the amount of writing we do daily. Although Thompson does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that if the amount of writing we are doing in the present continues, the general population in the future will be writing their whole lives and contributing more to the world than any other generation before them.

In the beginning of the article, John Sutherland, a very established English professor, argues with the point that Thompson and Lunsford both agree on. Sutherland states that texting has dehydrated language into "bleak, bald, sad shorthand." Though he does make a good point with stating that sometimes normal words are shortened in texts, thus destroying the English language, text messaging still allows the use of intelligent words and the convenience of being instantaneous. With new phones being developed with full keyboards, texting is becoming as long and informative as emails in some ways.

My own view is that the demand of the younger generation is to be able to talk as fast as possible with the least amount of hassle. As a studious person, I refrain from shortening words in my text messages and I spell check always just to make sure I'm conveying the right message. Text messages and emails are useful sometimes when we're caught up in our busy lives but as a main source of communication it lacks a couple of elements. The main ones being actual human interaction, not being able to judging the person's tone (not through text), and having that doubt of what you actually meant or what the person meant in what they said to you. Speaking in person is always the most meaningful way of connecting with someone or talking about something personal or important to you. In some ways, with the development of texting and emails, the emotional attachment disappears and people would much rather stay at home safe behind their computer screens with no one to judge them instantly.

In conclusion, I would agree with Thompson's conclusion that reads, "We think of writing as either good or bad. What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most crucial factor of all." He just restates that writing is a huge part of our lives, either productive, or unproductive. Who you are writing to almost always changes the style of writing you use, such as casual for a text to your girlfriend or professional for a proposal letter to your teacher. Also, it changes the kind of technology you use to communicate, like talking face to face when you are proposing or just sending an email asking how your best friend is doing at their new job. When it comes to writing in present day 2010, technology can hurt or help you depending on how you use it.