🚀 go-pugleaf

The arguments you presented on literacy (and computer literacy) seem to me
to be amazingly naive.  I thought I would present some answers to the
points you bring up.

You begin by claiming that literacy has nothing to do with the ability
to read and write, and, in turn, that the ability to read and write (or
speak--it is not clear from your rather confused prose) has little to do
with "literature."  This is obviously untrue; your posting is one of the
best counterexamples I could ask for.  Your inability to use the English
language has seriously damaged your ability to convince me that what you
are saying is worth reading.

You go on to suggest that iconography or picture writing is the direction
in which we must be headed.  I suggest that this is pure fox-with-no-tail;
because you have difficulty with conventional literacy, you are convinced
that there must be "some better way"--and that the rest of the world will
follow you to this pictographic utopia.

Literacy has several thousand years of history.  Picture writing has always
been an available alternative; as I'm sure you're aware, written language
apparently evolved from picture writing (several times, in fact).  History
suggests that everyone, everywhere found literacy preferable to illiteracy;
there are no instances of societies choosing to abandon "literacy" for the
sort of primitive iconography you are proposing.  Even the pictographic
writing systems show a tendency towards "literacy," with complex grammatical
encodings added to the basic picture systems.

I suggest that this is because the literary language is a much more powerful
system for communicating meaning than iconography.  People have been able to
communicate more subtle and powerful ideas in language than they have by
picture drawing and pointing.  Are you seriously arguing that we will throw
away the most powerful (and, potentially, accurate) form of communication we
have developed?

I see no evidence that the illiterate can be made "full citizens" of any
world order, even with the best will in the world.  Being denied access to
such a powerful tool will always be a handicap.  We should certainly do
what we can to accomodate the illiterate, but literacy will always be,
necessarily, a considerable advantage.

You argue, as well, that familiarity with literature is useless in developing
rhetorical (or literary) ability.  I suggest that you study the history of
rhetoric and literature more closely if you seriously hold this view.  I
will agree that it is just barely possible for someone to develop an
expressive rhetoric in a vacuum--but most literate, articulate writers got
that way by *reading* as well as writing.  Consider how likely you are to
learn to speak in an environment where you do not hear the spoken language.
Language is consensus, written language as much as spoken, and the only way
to understand that consensus and use it is to see it in action.  It is true
that great writers have extended the language--but they did so in an existing
context.

The written language is unlikely to disappear or become less important.
You may be frustrated by written English, but your personal frustration has
nothing to do with the history or future of literacy (you may take comfort
from the fact that frustration with literacy is as universal as literacy
itself--I have citations from sources as diverse as an Egyptian scribe, a
Roman author, a Carolingian abbot, and (innumerable) modern writers).  Nobody
said it was easy--but everyone seems to have concluded that it is worthwhile.

  --Martin Harriman 			martin@srucad.sc.intel.com