Scan barcode
wickedcestus's review against another edition
This book contains plenty of interesting insight into the ways our tools of written language affect the way we think and live, particularly phonetic writing and then the invention of print.
McLuhan's style can be frustrating, especially his use of literary quotations. I appreciate using scenes and aspects of famous literature to illustrate a point, but McLuhan always treated the works as if the authors specifically wrote them in order to make hiss point, which leads to some bizarre readings, especially when it comes to King Lear, which is quoted throughout. I wouldn't mind this except that he constantly refers to Shakespeare knowing and agreeing with his point, all on the basis of quotations that are often quite ambiguous and sometimes just completely beside the point.
As is often the case with books like this, he is a bit over-eager to associate historical trends with his narrative about literacy, and ends up in situations where it starts to feel like a stretch. He also makes a few bizarre statements regarding East Asian cultures, which he doesn't seem to know much about. He tends to handle exceptions to his argument by saying things like, "Germans and the Japanese, while far-advanced in literate and analytic technology, retained the core of auditory tribal unity and total togetherness," and then doesn't try to explain why or how this is the case.
However, these frustrations are infrequent and for the most part easy to ignore. The book is unique in its presentation of the subject matter, and opens up a whole new realm of analysis regarding the effects of literacy and print technology. While he argues that we have exited the age of print and entered the age of electronics -- which is what allows him to take an objective look at the effects of print in the first place -- there still remain in our present world much residue left over from that age.
What particularly interested me was his comparisons between the way people read manuscripts -- mostly aloud to themselves, and slowly -- and the printed word. I am a person who likes to sound out the words in my head as I read, and I think it is a valuable way of engaging yourself with the text and getting the most out of it, so it was somewhat vindicating to hear that this is how many books were traditionally read and meant to be read. Speed-reading has always felt to me like trivializing the text. I once heard a joke somewhere about someone who took a speed-reading course where they read War and Peace in twenty minutes, after which, when asked for a synopsis, they replied, "It's about Russia."
Another interesting idea brought up in the book is the way that literacy has affected science. One of the arguments of the book is that literacy promotes the visual sense above all others, divorcing words from their sounds and context and presenting them as a purely visual medium. He brings up that in science, even auditory or other forms of data are always converted to visual data in order to be analyzed and understood. I don't know the implications of this, and he doesn't get too far into it, but it's something interesting to think about.
The book often feels like an argument against literacy, but he stresses many times that the question is not whether literate culture is good or bad, but just that we should be aware of the way our technologies affect us. McLuhan's specialty was media analysis -- as in, analyzing the medium itself, not the content. It's definitely worthwhile try to zoom out and think about the way our tools affect the way we view the world. We often think that our view of reality is unmediated, but this book makes clear that that is not the case. Again, this is not necessarily bad, just something to be aware of.
McLuhan's style can be frustrating, especially his use of literary quotations. I appreciate using scenes and aspects of famous literature to illustrate a point, but McLuhan always treated the works as if the authors specifically wrote them in order to make hiss point, which leads to some bizarre readings, especially when it comes to King Lear, which is quoted throughout. I wouldn't mind this except that he constantly refers to Shakespeare knowing and agreeing with his point, all on the basis of quotations that are often quite ambiguous and sometimes just completely beside the point.
As is often the case with books like this, he is a bit over-eager to associate historical trends with his narrative about literacy, and ends up in situations where it starts to feel like a stretch. He also makes a few bizarre statements regarding East Asian cultures, which he doesn't seem to know much about. He tends to handle exceptions to his argument by saying things like, "Germans and the Japanese, while far-advanced in literate and analytic technology, retained the core of auditory tribal unity and total togetherness," and then doesn't try to explain why or how this is the case.
However, these frustrations are infrequent and for the most part easy to ignore. The book is unique in its presentation of the subject matter, and opens up a whole new realm of analysis regarding the effects of literacy and print technology. While he argues that we have exited the age of print and entered the age of electronics -- which is what allows him to take an objective look at the effects of print in the first place -- there still remain in our present world much residue left over from that age.
What particularly interested me was his comparisons between the way people read manuscripts -- mostly aloud to themselves, and slowly -- and the printed word. I am a person who likes to sound out the words in my head as I read, and I think it is a valuable way of engaging yourself with the text and getting the most out of it, so it was somewhat vindicating to hear that this is how many books were traditionally read and meant to be read. Speed-reading has always felt to me like trivializing the text. I once heard a joke somewhere about someone who took a speed-reading course where they read War and Peace in twenty minutes, after which, when asked for a synopsis, they replied, "It's about Russia."
Another interesting idea brought up in the book is the way that literacy has affected science. One of the arguments of the book is that literacy promotes the visual sense above all others, divorcing words from their sounds and context and presenting them as a purely visual medium. He brings up that in science, even auditory or other forms of data are always converted to visual data in order to be analyzed and understood. I don't know the implications of this, and he doesn't get too far into it, but it's something interesting to think about.
The book often feels like an argument against literacy, but he stresses many times that the question is not whether literate culture is good or bad, but just that we should be aware of the way our technologies affect us. McLuhan's specialty was media analysis -- as in, analyzing the medium itself, not the content. It's definitely worthwhile try to zoom out and think about the way our tools affect the way we view the world. We often think that our view of reality is unmediated, but this book makes clear that that is not the case. Again, this is not necessarily bad, just something to be aware of.
uderecife's review against another edition
3.0
In some sense, this is a difficult book. Its main theme is interesting in itself, but as the title points out, it’s a Galaxy, or a myriad of connections that are simply to great to properly grasp it fully. If we take the analogy of the galaxy even further, it becomes obvious that even McLuhan’s analysis of the Gutenberg influence in Western culture is somewhat doomed to failure: we are simply too close to its effects, too deep inside it, to understand it clearly — just like trying to understand the Milky Way from inside is also a baffling task.
Being a difficult subject is a kind of excuse for the somewhat opaqueness of this work. McLuhan, in the essay that ends the book, states that “[t]he present volume has employed a mosaic pattern of perception and observation up till now” (MCLUHAN, 1962). This mosaic pattern is an attempt to cover the vast subject with meaningful quotes from different areas of study, using the quotes to provide examples of how typography changed humankind’s perception of things, altering the relation with understanding and the world at large — making of the whole of humanity a uniform entity. However, even though we can understand the approach McLuhan chose to cover this subject, this mosaic technique is also very confusing at times and can often mislead from the author’s original intention.
My feeling is that at some point even McLuhan himself was confused as to where he was trying to go with the text he had produced thus far. However, I’m not trying to diminish his work or to state that it could be done in some other, more competent way. As stated before, the subject matter, being a galaxy of consequences, it’s simply too overwhelming to be completely grasped.
But, in the end, this book can provide some light to those who want to understand history’s movements and changes in a different light, one that focus on the technological changes of information sharing, thus showing a different perspective that takes away history from the hands of some enlightened individuals and places it in the domain of the accidents that simple inventions with huge penetration have had in society at large. This book is also good to direct your attention the work of Harold Innis that provides much more insight into this theme of information technology, media shaping and history making. As McLuhan himself states, “Harold Innis was the first person to hit upon the process of change as implicit in the forms of media technology. The present book is a footnote of explanation to his work.” (MCLUHAN, 1962).
So is it worth reading? As always, it depends. If you’re studying media, media development, media implications, and so on, probably yes; if you’re just want to gloss over some of the ideas herein contained, probably not — you’ll be better served if you read a summary or a thorough review of this work.
Being a difficult subject is a kind of excuse for the somewhat opaqueness of this work. McLuhan, in the essay that ends the book, states that “[t]he present volume has employed a mosaic pattern of perception and observation up till now” (MCLUHAN, 1962). This mosaic pattern is an attempt to cover the vast subject with meaningful quotes from different areas of study, using the quotes to provide examples of how typography changed humankind’s perception of things, altering the relation with understanding and the world at large — making of the whole of humanity a uniform entity. However, even though we can understand the approach McLuhan chose to cover this subject, this mosaic technique is also very confusing at times and can often mislead from the author’s original intention.
My feeling is that at some point even McLuhan himself was confused as to where he was trying to go with the text he had produced thus far. However, I’m not trying to diminish his work or to state that it could be done in some other, more competent way. As stated before, the subject matter, being a galaxy of consequences, it’s simply too overwhelming to be completely grasped.
But, in the end, this book can provide some light to those who want to understand history’s movements and changes in a different light, one that focus on the technological changes of information sharing, thus showing a different perspective that takes away history from the hands of some enlightened individuals and places it in the domain of the accidents that simple inventions with huge penetration have had in society at large. This book is also good to direct your attention the work of Harold Innis that provides much more insight into this theme of information technology, media shaping and history making. As McLuhan himself states, “Harold Innis was the first person to hit upon the process of change as implicit in the forms of media technology. The present book is a footnote of explanation to his work.” (MCLUHAN, 1962).
So is it worth reading? As always, it depends. If you’re studying media, media development, media implications, and so on, probably yes; if you’re just want to gloss over some of the ideas herein contained, probably not — you’ll be better served if you read a summary or a thorough review of this work.
thirdcoast's review against another edition
4.0
More...