 |
 |
Dear poetryetc, I have been reading the dialogue on literacy with interest so thought I'd jump in and add a few comments, which are not intended as a refutation of others' posts. To add to what Gillian said about flexible boundaries, my thought is that 'illiteracy' denotes a variety of things in Western culture, each of them quite different. Many people have gone through their school years without learning to read or write effectively- and in some cases not at all, though I don't know the figures. Large class sizes or unrecognised dyslexia are two reasons for this phenomenon. Another category could be some new migrants who struggle with English though they may be highly literate in their first language, and are often- unfairly- deemed illiterate when the struggle is evident. My feeling is that it's a subtle issue. Every person uses symbols it is just a question of how and which ones and what meanings are attached: I don't think one way is self-evidently better than any other, though Western cultures usually give more credence to written communication. Sub-categories, almost sub-dialects emerge. For instance, I have no idea what my partner is saying when he talks programmer-speak. And likewise he doesn't get poetry-speak. We are each illiterate inasmuch as we don't know these professional vocubularies outside our own. And dare I say it, poetry has its sub-categories too. The net is full of 'bad' poets who may not be so bad at all if taken in the context of their influences which may include popular culture and 'personal experience' but not neccessarily a lot of poets. A friend of mine has written an interesting history thesis on Ned Kelly's Jerilderie Letters which takes up these themes with much more depth and subtlety than I have here. Anyhow, thank you for the food for thought. Best, Cassie _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/