In reading Professor Bump's article I immediately felt the
need to respond to the ideas implied in the questions that
begin the article. The opening questions ask if the people
of today are experiencing "a decline in the sophisticated,
higher-order ability to think seriously, conceptually,
abstractly, deductively, inferentially, and sequentially;
"(Bump #1). As I've grown up I've always heard people
speaking of the "good ole' days" when people could leave
their doors unlocked, questioning "what the world has come
to," or otherwise implying that the present is much worse
than the past and that people in general are experiencing a
downslide. And, at first, these things seemed reasonable.
But as I've become more educated I've realized that the day
and age that we live in is immeasurably better than any era
of the past. So the idea that we, as a people, are no
longer capable of high-level thoughts and ideas seems
ludicrous. Today, people are coming up with things and
theories and products and ideas that blow the ideas of
other generations out of the water. I would even venture to
say that this time in history is the high-point of abstract
thought in this world, so far. One of the main reasons
behind this high-level of thinking and conveying feeling is
they tools we have to express our thoughts.
When Chetna and Eric claim that these new ways of
communicating information "have
made our youth more impatient," they demonstrate a very
narrow view of impatience. These students may very well be
impatient, but it is only because of the wealth of
information and ideas that is available. There is no point
in wasting time on something of medium-importance when
there are millions of life-changing ideas sitting there for
the taking. If you're familiar with the old TV game show
"Supermarket Sweep," this would be akin to, during the "Big
Sweep," dwelling on which box of Ramen noodles you should
put in your cart when the next aisle is chock full of
expensive turkeys and steaks. In the time we waste on
mediocre ideas we could've been filling our shopping cart
with ideas that matter. In this case being impatient is a
virtue that the youth of today are blessed with.
I am really perplexed by the views of Postman on the
new Hypermedia. While I understand that the Typographic Age
represents a "pure" time for him, the reasons he lists for
its superiority are quite bizarre. He states that the
Typographical Age "ushered in rationalism, individualism,
modern science, and new genres of prose" (Bump #5). Wait
Mr. Postman, could that not be said for Hypermedia as well?
I can't think of a time when there has been more rational
thought than there is today. Hypermedia has allowed the
world as a whole to collect different sides of every story
or issue in order to not be irrational or ignorant in their
thoughts. Hypermedia has given more and more people the
right to be an individual. In the past, people who had
ideas that rubbed publishers the wrong way had no viable
way of getting their message out. Through new Hypermedia
mediums anyone can be heard just as loudly as a published
author without having to sacrifice their cause. To me, this
is the definition of individualism in literature.
Obviously, as well, the new ways of making results more
available are taking "modern science" to a whole new level.
There has never been a time of more experimentation in
literature than the era of Hypermedia. I struggle to
imagine a David Foster Wallace without access to
information on the Internet. Without hypermedia, the new
forms on online journals churning out new and exciting
works by the second disappear. So, if those are, in fact,
the reasons Postman champions to Typographical Age, I can't
understand why he wouldn't be an ardent supporter of
Hypermedia.
This Hypermedia is giving us better ways of learning, ways
to use both sides of our brains, and is making learning
fun.