I spent a lot of time reading Alex's thoughts on "why teach literature per books?" Sure, digital technology is a literacy, but it is only ONE kind of literacy in a broad world of many, including classic works of literature.
What's wrong with embracing the literary antiquity of books? Books are a connection to our ancestors; they give us a perspective of where we are and where we've come from. Openning a book may be irrelevant but it is a ritual, (much like body piercing) through which we get in touch with our archeypal roots. I'd like to thinks that history and heritage of printed text is important, even if it may not occupy the dominate place in ELA classrooms.
Plus, absorbing information digitally makes one's eyes bloodshot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I certainly agree Tamara that digital literacy is only "one kind." However I do think you conflate "books" with "literature." There are many books that are not "literary." Why not read philosophy or technical documnetation or journalism or whatever? In fact there are many works of fiction, poetry, etc that are not considered "literary," as you know.
So why teach "literature"? Why inculcate our preservice teachers so heavily in a literary history while largely overlooking virtually any other discursive practice?
Post a Comment