The Owl Has Flown (Reading Response #3)

In Birkerts article “The owl has flown” he demonstrates that because of the access we have to so many written material we have lost are sense of depth. Birkerts suggests this when he says, I quote, “ Newspapers, magazines, brochures, advertisements, and labels surround us everywhere-surround us, indeed, to the point of having turned our waking environment into a palimpsest of texts to be read, glances at, or ignored...the gradual displacement of the vertical to the horizontal-the sacrifice of depth to lateral range...a shift from intensive to extensive reading. When books are rare, hard to obtain, and expensive. The reader must compensate though intensified focus, must read the same passages over and over...This is ferocious reading-prison or desert island reading-and where it does not assume depth, it creates it.”
I agree with Birkerts statement but mostly disagree. I agree with the fact we have lost a sense of depth because we don't reread materials. Therefore, not being able to gather as mush as we can out of someones written work, but at the same time we have to compare the books that were reread century's ago to the type of books that are available to us today. The texts that were written, and read many years ago, were in need of being reread in order to interpret it, and find out its true meaning. for example, the Bible is a book I think would need to be reread because it is a very long text, and sometimes the same stories are told in different views requiring thought. It is also in need of being reread in order to understand more fully what the words mean, and are describing in the original language. The Bible was translated from the original Hebrew, to Greek, Latin, some other languages, then finally English. So the interpretation of those languages can take a long time to study and compare. The way Hebrew definitions compare to Latin or English definitions can be different. A quick example would be the word in the Bible ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah Jirah'' which is referred to as the name of God in the English language. Which is correct, but In the Hebrew the words used to name God had a meaning behind it which adds more depth and meaning to the text, Elohim means ''the self existing one.'' and the translation of ''Jehovah Jirah'' would be ''my provider'' which shows, you have to take the text deeper to get the full description and meaning out of the text and means a lot more then just the name ''God.''\
Now a days we have access to so much written material, but I think it is not necessarily worth rereading because it is already written as deep as it can get. For example, the book series “Twilight” written by Stephanie Meyer, is a very popular series amongst young people today, mostly girls. The entire story is made up, has no truth behind it, and has one original language that can be taken at face value, and require no interpretation amongst English speaking people. Who are the main readers of this novel. Would a person really benefit by rereading that series over and over again in order to obtain some depth? A lot of the books available to us our trivial fairy tales sometimes poorly written, and have limited interpretations. Also I would like to question the point Birkerts bring up when he mentions the reason books were reread over and over again was because there were few, hard to get, and expensive. Because of that fact only the wealthy had access to books, and read them because they had time to. While the poverty stricken couldn't read them because they could not afford the education, and even if they could they would not be able to afford the book itself, or have time to read them because they were working. So having fewer, and more expensive books only benefited the rich, or those in religious organizations such as the Catholic Church who had access to them. While the poor being the majority could not experience the depth that Birkerts is referring to. Because books were not readily available and as inexpensive as they are today. In conclusion Birkert is taking his reliance on depth in an unrealistic sense. Yes, we should reread books that we feel are of significance and would cause the improvement of are minds, and the way we live. No, we should not reread every book or text that we come across because the depth we would be creating are of significantly low use or value. To be fair not all people find the Bible to be of significance, but find Twilight of great self improvement, so I believe it is up to the reader to decide what texts must be reread in order to experience depth. Not rereading the precious few materials that are at ones fingertips just because that's all you have.