Literature Rex

I sat, a book clutched in my hands and the words of Sophocles swelling to occupy my mind.

"Let it break! Let everything break! I must-"

Then the swell broke. Indeed, everything Oedipus said broke, and the words of AP Literature students swelled into my mind instead.

"Did you get caught up in the Aeneid?"

"Girl!" one of the seniors shrilly shrieked. "You know I don't got time for that! I got to work so I can get to college!"

Although I refocused my eyes to the paper words, my ears lingered on the bombastic student voices that battled the voices of the chorus that interpreted Oedipus' fate.

Paper words hopped up to my eyes, but vocal words pried into my very concentration. I began to see in this instance  that most readers my age did not respect the activity of reading. The readers who interrupted me did not concern themselves with content over task. Even then, when assigned to the Aeneid, they developed a great variety of excuses to avoid task! Even preparing for college became an excuse, despite the fact that understanding literature is an integral skill for the rigor of academia that college presents!

David Denby addresses a similar issue in his article Do Teens Read Seriously Anymore?, listing a number of distractions and excuses such as "School, homework, sports, jobs, clothes, parents, brothers, sisters, half brothers, half sisters, friendships, love affairs, hanging out, music, and, most of all, screens..." Here, he acknowledges that teens lead busy lives and are far too wrapped up in being sociable and in touch with technology. I agree with his claim that the appeal of technology has subsumed the appeal of literature in our modern and increasingly digital age. Denby proceeds to assert that a major issue is that teenagers and adults alike crave "personal gratification provided by constant feedback" and "rueful self-acknowledgement", supposedly factors in an indifference to literature. This ties into his argument about technology in his claim that "Many of us are looking at screens all the time too. Even the book lovers..."

I assert that this is where Denby was too quick in his judgment. He gives the reader that age-old argument that technology threatens to make literature obsolete because it overwhelms our culture in its presence. It is not the presence of technology, however, but the presentation. The far-reaching capabilities of technology, if presented properly, can enhance literature in our culture.

95% of teenagers between 12 and 17 years old use social media to interact, according to the Pew Research Center. If an influential figure in teen culture presented this medium in a way that promoted reading and literary discussion, technological appeal may cease to subsume literary appeal and instead promote it.

Now, I return to Denby's argument that seems to set literature and technology against one another, as if the two must clash. During his reference to his observation that even book lovers cannot escape the call of the screen, he briefly mentions "listening to an audio book." He is wrong to criticize this, for literature does not lose value merely because it shifts platforms. In fact, before the existence of literature as we know it, the platform was word of mouth. Stories passed through the lips of generations before they were graced in ink. When print became the growing dominant platform, society embraced this innovation and morphed simple fables and anecdotes into the rhetorical brilliance we aim to keep in high regard today. If the mere discovery of the printed word led us to feel touched by literature worldwide, we must allow literature to survive this age by taking advantage of the platforms available within it. Millions of minds drift across social media every minute, touched and impressed upon by what they view there. If literature were more widely promoted to have value in a way teenagers will understand, they will learn to value words as much as they do technology, as a result of technology.

Of course, Denby is correct to claim that, currently, technology does hinder the aforementioned aim, but he also injures what could be his own vision with his directly oppositional point of view. Technology, though misused, has the potential to be the next unknown and innovative frontier of literature. "Literature will survive too, somehow." But only if we refrain from Denby's train of thought, that divides two prominent platforms --one dying and one growing-- instead of allowing them to embrace.

Shall we ever see what Denby referred to as the "Golden Age of Teen Reading?" Shall the task driven excuses of the majority cease to engulf the content driven voices of Oedipus' chorus?

Shall the words of Sophocles and his king be known on a new platform, or shall technology be as ignorant and tortured as Oedipus himself?

"Let it break! Let everything break! I must-"

I must find solace in my request that we do not blind ourselves with dedication to the story of paper we've always seemed to know and proceed to blind ourselves again with confusion towards the story of unresolved ends we've only just discovered.

Citations:

• Sophocles, Stephen Berg, and Diskin Clay. Oedipus the King. New York: Oxford UP, 1978. N. pag. Print.
• Denby, David. "Do Teens Read Seriously Anymore?" The New Yorker(2016): n. pag. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
• "Teen Fact Sheet." Pewinternet.org. Pew Research Center, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
• "Oedipus Rex." Flickr.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.