I’m
going to, begrudgingly, summarize chapter 5 of this book: The Peek-a-Boo World.
By my word choice, it may be easy to tell that I did not find this…book to be very interesting or flat out
good. But I will not let that cloud my summary.
Chapter
5 starts out with Neil Postman continuing to take the readers on the journey
through communication history, this time to the telegraph. He points out that
all the telegraph managed to do was create “a sea of information, [where] there
was very little of it to use” (Neil 67). What he means by this is that the
telegraph was often used as a way for people to pass on tabloid gossip between
cities. He explained how that something happening to a popular woman in one
town would have her story told through the country, but no one other than the
town that she was from even knew who she was and why she was important.
Neil went on to explain how “telegraphy
was the exact opposite of typography” (Neil 69). By typography, he of course
means books. His comparison essentially says that books are meant for a last
effect, on that takes time and effort to appreciate, while the telegraph is
only good for the “flashing of messages” (Neil 70). From the telegraph, he goes
on to talk about photography and how it, too, is not really as revolutionary as
we all thought that it was. This is due to it not being arguable as well as it
being something else ‘instant.’
What all of these things come down
to is what Neil calls “a peek-a-boo world” where each event or message is
there, now there, and now there.
Your opinion of the book did not come across in your post (besides for the disclaimer at the beginning), which is good. You remained objective in your assessment of the chapter. Telegraphy can have the same effect as typography in that it can have a lasting effect as well. I can see where your distaste for the chapter could come from, though. I plan on skimming through that chapter to form my own opinion about it. I appreciate your objectiveness despite your feelings toward the chapter.
ReplyDeleteI really did not care for this book either - pretty nice waste of money I think. To be honest, the only thing I found interesting was the intro, telling us how we are so very different from the time this book was initially written. Alas, this was something we hear almost daily. Anyway, you did a great job of writing unbiasedly. Your summarization was spot on and to the point.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you on your opinion of the book. I think the author forgets that in a world where people value advancement and convenience that we can not live a life as simple as he thinks we should have. It is unrealistic to think that we have to wait until the things we have to say are full of enough knowledge until we develop a way of communicating. He thinks that we should have stayed with books, and although I am a book person myself, I don't think it is reasonable to think we would never to have made advancement.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your opinion but I have to say that living in a 'simpler' world does sometimes sound very appealing. I do appreciate the advances in technology that we have made throughout time but I wish it was just a little bit less. Sometimes I feel that we don't truly appreciate the things that we have because we are just waiting for the next new thing to come and sweep us off our feet. It's a monotonous circle that will never end. While growing up, I never really had any of the new gadgets that all of the other kids had, and I turned out just fine. I appreciate the concept that the author was trying to get across. I am aware that it is impossible for us to just not advance but maybe we can put our foots down, if even for a moment and enjoy what we are given without wanting more.
ReplyDeleteI liked this book and in Chapter 5, I thought Postman made a really good point. The more technology advances and allows us to “communicate” better and faster, the less real human communication really occurs. The telegraph, television, and now, the Internet, have increased the speed of communication. In many situations this speed is invaluable. But it can’t replace looking someone in the eye, holding their hand, laughing with them or crying with them. I think many people who are caught up in our new ways of communicating like texting and Facebook are starved for real human contact. Postman writes about the telegraph making our country “one neighborhood” populated by strangers who know nothing but the most superficial facts about each other. Our world of fast and superficial communication doesn’t satisfy our human need for real connection.
ReplyDelete