Reading Response #1

In Clive Thompson’s recent article “The New Literacy” he suggested that the big boom of technology among students has been beneficial to their writing techniques. Many people however disagree with his stance, for example he uses an idea from John Sutherland who thinks that “Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into bleak, bald, sad shorthand.” Throughout the piece Thompson implies (using research by Andrea Lunsford) several times that he disagrees with Sutherland’s stance. For instance, through a study done by Lunsford about the writing of Stanford Students Thompson disproves the myth that kids have started to use “texting speak” and “smileys” in essays. He also hints that the “New Literacy” is pushing our writing in “bold new directions,” because this generation is always writing for an audience, which (according to Thompson) much different than generations in the past.

Thompson shows the importance and benefits of writing for an audience throughout his work. In Lunsford’s research she found that the Stanford Students were “remarkably good” at “accessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across.” Thompson also says (once again using information provided by Lunsford’s study) that students are also much more enthusiastic about what they write if they aren’t just writing for a professor and when what they write means more than “just a grade.”

In my own experiences I have found that most adults agree with the stand point of John Sutherland, that technology has been a curse rather than a blessing for our generation. My English teacher last year is a perfect example of this; she was constantly saying that the quality of our writing is decreasing because we are drowning in technology.

Although my former teacher is right technology is everywhere, my own view is more similar to Thompson’s. I personally feel that since I’ve started using Facebook, Myspace, texting, and programs on the computer the quality of my writing has improved. These programs have forced me to practice writing more, and to think more about what I write depending on who I’m writing to. Therefore, I can also relate to the Stanford Students in Lunsford’s study because just like them my enthusiasm for writing increases when there is an audience. I would much rather speak to my peers or the public in general to get my opinions out there, instead of writing robotically for a teacher and giving them exactly what they want to hear. Another fear many adults have (pointed out in Thompson’s article,) is that “texting speak” has become part of our generations writing. My own view is that this is not a rational fear for them to have. When I write I want my audience to fully understand my thoughts, if I used short handed “texting speak” then I feel like I wouldn’t be successfully conveying my message to the reader.

The new style of writing that is described in Thompson’s article is new, exciting, and different than what most people have seen before. At first glance it may seem “bad” but taking a closer look will show that there’s much more too it than what meets the eye.