Much of the reading that we have been focusing on this past week has been about the relationship between writing and reading. There have been arguments made about the focus on the skill of writing and the skill of reading and about how they are both owed equal attention and care. I am fascinated by the concept that without writing there is no reading and how reading is so much more than words on a page.
In Brandt’s piece, Literacy and Learning, the idea of mass writing versus mass reading was brought up. I was disappointed with this concept that writing is a good or a commodity rather than something that is done for good. I believe that the power of the written word does far more good than its sometimes trivial purposes. Words are forever, though life is fleeting. The greats have touched hundreds of thousands of lives since their passing, with the written word. There is a reason that people still read Shakespeare and the Bronte sisters. It is not because their writing was done simply for mass-market production. Some writing, like research papers or informational articles might be meant for mass production and consumption, and here, I can see Brandt’s point about reading and writing being a give and take relationship, This is a completely different type of writing and reading, and should be treated as such. Emailing, texting—these are types of writing, for personal, not mass consumption, which could be equated to writing in a journal. There is no give and take relationship here. News, journal articles—these don’t take, they give, and they are meant for informational purposes. This should not be put on the same playing field as good literature.