The way we write is changing; therefore, the way we read inevitably follows. If our reading and writing is changing, they are the effect of our speech changing. Speech is changing drastically within a shockingly short period of time. We make fun of it; we call it silly and impractical the way youngsters use acronyms for every little thing, the way slang is the new-er norm, the way technology creates new words and idioms all together. If you’re not in the know, you won’t understand, quite literally. However, all the fun you’re having by poking at it isn’t going to make it slow down; in fact, it seems to be an inevitable turn humans have unconsciously chosen. Humans are redeeming the spoken word, whether intentionally or not.
Speech is the oldest form of communication known to mankind, especially before the written word. Written communication is useless without speech, being only an abstraction of speech. Without a speech interpretation, a lone word, letter, or phoneme is completely useless. Following speech, the next mass form of communication invented by man was architecture and art. Architecture was a major medium for speech from ancient to medieval cultures in order for them to record their values, beliefs, and histories for everyone to see. For example, the ancient Egyptians didn’t even have a word for “art” because their art was simply a didactic form of communication. Their history and values were recorded for the worlds following them to find through hieroglyphics, displayed in their temples, living quarters, pottery, cemeteries, and pretty much every piece of “art” constructed within the realm of architecture. Not to mention a vital reason for visual art as a preferred form of communication would have been because the majority of humans were illiterate.
After architecture came an even more impressive, impactful mass form of communication: literature. Victor Hugo, in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I believe, stated, “The book killed the building.” After literature became more readily available for the masses, people didn’t have to refer anymore to the art governments and churches monopolized in order to define their own values and histories, even more pungent of a meaning for The Hunchback of Notre Dame, signifying that the mass printing of the Bible allowed people to study and interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be at the mercy of the church and its teachings.
Literature’s impact has lasted up until today, and yes, so has architecture to a certain degree. However, despite architecture still being valued today, the messages of architecture are not expressed so literally on its inside and outside walls the way they once were. Literature, on the other hand, can still carry a message as explicitly as it cares to; however, many view literature as a “struggling” or “dying art,” no longer valued as an essentiality but simply an “art,” a luxury. This is because literature is not instantaneous. Today, we have modern technology in order to share an idea, persuade, or instruct. Phones, e-mail, instant messaging, texting, skyping, are all instant forms of communication that can be shared and distributed from one person to the next as quickly as the words coming out of one’s mouth. It’s safe to say that this instant form of technological communication is as quick and gratifying as speech itself. Sure speech is changing, and sure the way we write and read is changing, sometimes more for the worse than the better, but it’s exciting because it shows the innovation of humans going back to their roots of speech. Think of how different mass communication today is from the clergymen of the Middle Ages sitting in a dimly lit room slaving away, copying word for word of purely expository language just to share it with another person. So, let’s just give up on this losing battle and embrace this new face of communication. Sure, it’s young and often quite acne-ridden, but it’s exciting, and social, and innovative.
No comments:
Post a Comment