The Webster Dictionary vaguely defines the word, “literature” as, “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features.” In a more targeted, and by my taste, close-minded definition, Birketts would most likely offer a definition entailing words on a page, or some sort of venue akin to papyrus, bound together into a single book. According to Birketts, one should view these words alone, so as to fully intake the glory that is the act of reading; and so as to not interact with another living sou. If one were to point Birketts to an article on a website for example, he would by no means classify those words as legitimate forms of literature, but frankly, he would be making a terrible mistake in doing so. Specifically, the essay, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” is innately a piece of literature, both by Webster’s definition in that it offers ideas of interest, and also by my own standards.
Although Birketts would disagree with me here, the act of reading was never intended to be done privately. Take hieroglyphics for example, one of the earliest forms of writing possible – these symbols conveyed messages which were meant to aid communication when it was not able to be verbally spoken. This example offers some of the earliest proof that reading and writing were, from their point of creation, intended to be a social event. This is the exact point of my initial argument of why this online article is absolutely, 100% legitimate.
This article was written by a journalist, who’s job is to convey the news, touch on topics in current events, and basically convey information to the general public. This article, does just that — it provides people with information to be shared with people. It is here where Birketts may run into some problems with his own argument. Does the fact that this article was written with the intent to be read, shared, and discussed among the masses make it illegitimate? Because he would probably say yes to this, the same thing can then be said about books; aren’t they intended to be read, shared and discussed among numerous people? The answer is a resounding yes – making Birketts’ first argument disappointingly hollow.
Birketts also finds a quarrel with the general location of said text. The fact that these words are located on an electronic screen suddenly sends his vantage point into a tail spin of chaos. To Birketts, as soon as words appear on a screen – something he vehemently condemns throughout his book – they become drastically different, and can by no means be considered as pieces of literature anymore. Again, I find him hugely at fault here, and unreasonably close minded. If anything, the fact that they are on a screen, and on the World Wide Web, make them almost twice as legitimate as they would be if they were located in a book. Allow me to break this down into my sometimes hard to follow logic:
By my standards, reading is indeed something which should be thought provoking and should stir emotions. Because of standards like that, it should also be something which becomes social as people share their ideas, their reactions and their feelings about whatever it is that they have just read. An article about a controversial topic to begin with will be thought provoking by nature, but when it is displayed on an online venue, it is offered up as a topic of discussion to whomever my stumble across those words. From there, they can then join their fellow readers in discussion and post a comment on the article, or if they’re feeling really ambitious that day, they can blog about it by means of some other online site. This chain of events – reading something, mentally marinating over it and digesting it, and then turning around and joining discussion on it, is what reading to me is all about. That is exactly what the author is generally trying to accomplish. He or she is intending to start conversation with their words. That’s how they know that they have done a good job in their work.
Also, because an online article such as this one has things like hyperlinks embedded within the text, it offers dozens of different avenues to continue reading as the reader may choose to “keep clicking through.” Birketts would argue that this is a form of “vertical reading” in the sense that all of the words on the page are not being fully appreciated or read for that matter, therefore the work is relatively illegitimate. To him, books are superior because they do not offer avenues for such audacious crimes to be committed, as the reader must continue on horizontally instead of bouncing from page to page and topic to topic. In my mind, Birketts’ condemnation of “vertical reading” is asinine.
If anything, it is better to be able to read “vertically” because you can cover a huge range of topics, and learn dozens of new things about all sorts of areas, rather than being constricted to simply the words on the pages of a book. The ability to “click through” pages makes an online article such as this one not only more interesting, but more thought provoking and more educational (if used properly) because the reader can view so many different pages within such a short amount of time and with minimal effort.
Overall, a web based article is without a doubt a proper, and legitimate form of literature. It fits Webster’s definition, and the standards which I laid out based on my views. It is thought provoking, can involve numerous people to partake in, and can provide insight on numerous different topics. So what if Birketts gets cold feet as soon as words that could just as easily be printed in a news paper appear on a screen instead? The bottom line is that this article possesses every quality necessary to facilitate it into the realm of legitimate literature.
