Open Oculus

Summary: In his article, “The end of bookishness”, Steiner isn’t saying the book is ending, over, done.  He’s saying that books are no longer the middle class’s main way of deriving information and entertainment.  Steiner wrote, “The end of bookishness” at a time when cable TV was huge but mass internet use had not yet taken hold (Steiner 1988).  He therefore does not refer to net surfing but sees “electronic sources” (this refers I’m sure to computers, games, movies, videos and TV) as being the primary sources of information and enjoyment and books, by comparison, as dated and antiquated (Steiner 1988).  He feels that reading as a quiet practice is threatened for a burgeoning host of reasons: walls are thin and noise blocks concentration.  Also, he states young people have an actual preference for noise, be it background television or music, they prefer multiple stimuli to reading in silence.  Steiner also states people have less leisure time to read because a thicker slice of leisure-time-pie is taken up by electronic pursuits, namely TV.  He suggests other reading markets, mass circulation tabloids and other mainly pictorial works are taking up more of people’s time, leaving less time for more “bookish” choices.

Steiner also refers to emergent trends which further downplay the traditional book- in 1988, poetry readings are popular entertainment and people are beginning to self-publish books by using their home computers.  Steiner states he is not writing the piece as a “pessimistic elegy”, he is simply looking at trends and gazing in the direction they are pointing in.  People both work and have leisure time.  During the “Age of the Book” (1550-1950), Steiner describes the middle class as using their leisure time for bookish pursuits.  But post-1950, because of technological advances, going beyond bookish pursuits became possible.  Options for leisure time widened.  Nearly 40 years later, Steiner sees these options for leisure as widening still, leaving traditional bookishness in an awkward position and even perhaps, “coming to a gradual end” (Steiner 1988).  Books had been an easy sell for a long time- how many other options for entertainment were there?  But Steiner saw in 1988 a technological shift and a market with much less interest in bookishness.  Steiner does suggest some positive outlook on the book market.  In the last few paragraphs of the article he refers to the rise of the small fine press book printers.  But counterbalancing this, he also describes “traditional quality” presses as being allied with “remunerative trash” (mass market publications) and to the decline of hard cover fiction and philosophical discourse.  And so, ensconced in his hierarchy of what is worth saving and what is taking over, Steiner closes with his dreamed of “Houses of Reading”, imagining glorious monastic spaces for those looking for quiet enlightenment or the sense of the miraculous from the book (Steiner 1988).

Response: Culture isn’t static.  Some bemoan this fact, especially when it means the demise of a practice they are especially fond of- the devoting of silent hours to reading a challenging text, for instance.  If this be bookishness, then I agree it might be a waning practice, at least in terms of touted leisure pursuits (these days, to admit to bookishness is to admit haughty intellectuality and a certain degree of anti-social tendency, oh dear, how embarrassing.)  But I think those inclined to such practices will stay so inclined.  It’s the rest of the population, the non-bookish who are much changing.  How?  Neither in 1988 or now is reading on the wane.  Steiner didn’t seem to think so either.  But he also doesn’t esteem the new kinds of reading (such as reading aloud to large groups and reading in a noisy din) and newly popular kinds of reading material such as tabloids, pictorial works and comic books (you know, “remunerative trash”), as much as he does those actions and works of the bookish kind.  This is fine.  His opinion, which is rather mildly expressed, has merit.  There is much to be said for reading challenging works of literature with one’s whole concentration.  I don’t think what is dying here is the inherently quiet person with a love of fine works of literature.  I think that person will always be born and will always be bookish.  And they will read in this quiet intent manner, as David Levy puts it, because for them there is a “sacred quality in the act of reading” when “book and reader, quiet and calm are one” (Levy 2001).  And no matter what diversions or tempting technologies life throws at them, they will always seek this meditative act of quiet reading.

But I feel there is also much to be said for non-bookish reading.  For what in fact might be happening now (and in 1988) is the expanding of all reading in general.  The moving of the importance of reading and information-gathering (a somewhat pretentious phrase because it sounds so full of directed purpose but what it actually is, is just a curious human being wanting to know what’s going on, to be apprised of the situation-that’s pretty much all of us, isn’t it?) from the middle class to all classes, from the “important” book to a whole new sea of informational objects.  But back to the word, ‘class’.  I don’t like that term either.  It seems to denote some kind of rank or relative human importance according to income and I feel that is a false classification.  It is important for all people to seek information if they are to survive, hold jobs, be informaed and cooperate in this world.  I think that all people are gathering or trying to gather information, in whatever ways they can afford and in the manner that best suits their circumstances and learning style.  We all gather information in different ways.  The non-bookish might not be seeking a monastic “house of reading” or trying to get their hands on a difficult philosophical treatise- and that’s ok.  Instead, they might find their reading on a public internet access station in a coffee shop, or in whatever newspapers they scan in a “third place” or information ground.  Or a person might read tabloids, magazines or paperbacks at work and go home to a busy family life.  Or a child who doesn’t “like reading” (i.e. bookish reading) but is thrilled to play World of Warcraft and read Spiderman Comics-this had merit also.  Perhaps, in order to gather information during the Age of the Book, only a certain group of people (i.e. the one’s with more financial capital, education and leisure time) were getting the lion’s share of the information, and as this was the “Age of the Book”, these were the ones who were bookish.  Now there are a multitude more portals for information, ways of learning, ways of stimulating the mind in a manner more appealing to the non-bookish kind, and thus now all people, not just the bookishly-inclined, have become wont to seek information, to learn.  We can quibble over the quality of the source, but I’m just pleased more people are being included in the informational process.

There is a parallel in “The end of bookishness” to themes in the article “Letter Writing as a Social Practice”.  It is noted by Barton and Hall that when technologies shift and cultural practices are altered that “people begin to reflect on literary practices” (Barton & Hall 2000).  The shift of physical letter writing to the creating of the virtual letter in the composing and sending of email (likely while multi-tasking) is quite like the shift from quiet bookishness to reading in electronic formats within an environment of sound and action.  Both cultural shifts are due to technological ones, both are widely reflected on (and sometimes bemoaned), but both, I would argue have brought these practices (reading and letter writing) to more people and even perhaps, at a  higher frequency, lesser price, bridging greater distance and at higher numbers of connectedness.  Just as technology made reading more accessible to larger numbers, so does technology make letter-writing more accessible.

Back when I wrote letters by hand, I may have done so several times a year to a limited number of individuals.  But now that I have email?  I keep in touch with a much larger variety of friends new and old as well as family, some extremely distant from me-and some I’ve never met before, but through email, we communicate.  I believe this greater connectedness, this greater information sharing and gathering is one of the great benefits of the “rise of the computer and electronic communication” (Barton & Hall 2000).  So while Steiner’s predicted gradual end of bookishness is proved out today by the fact that not as many seek the “quality” books- I would disagree with putting a negative value judgment on the entire trend because of that.  There are many other options for information, technological and otherwise, but if the bookish desire the more challenging text, those texts are available.  The fact that other reading choices are easier, shorter or less philosophical-I don’t feel this makes them trash, I feel this makes them accessible, it makes them read (as in past-tense) as opposed to doorstops or dust-gatherers.  It also makes them remunerative, and this is a good thing, not bad.  “The end of bookishness” is an end only for some, and only if they so choose.  For most it is a doorway and a beginning.  It is an expanding of the reading universe, a leveling of the intellectual playing field.

Barton, D. and N. Hall (2000). Letter Writing as a Social Practice.  Philadelphia, PA.  John Bejamins Pub.

Levy, D.M. (2001).  Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age.  New York, Arcade: Distributed by Time Warner Trade.

Steiner, G. (1988) “The end of bookishness.” PLS (July).