Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing lashes out at the Internet

[Fifty]

I think the recent Nobel Prize Winner who happened to have invented the internets needs to pay her a little visit...

 

[LesCanadiens]

Wait wait wait. You're gonna hafta somehow quantify the "crap to quality ratio" here. There's just as much crap in print media as the internet. Just as much crappy literature in typical print media. Just as much horrible television programming on the tube, as there is on the internet. The "crap to quality" ratio is probably worst on the radio. Far worse than the net. No need for the internet to find high dosages of crap. Just turn on any given major network at any given time to find that. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Unless you find "Nancy Grace," "Joe Scarborough," or "Katie Couric and the Evening News" as...anything other than crappy.

Why would I have to identify it? I've already qualified it as being just my opinion, based on what I've seen with my own two eyes. What I've seen is that even the worst stuff in print and on television has historically been light years ahead of what you can find on the internet. Now, once again you completely miss a very important statement I've made: I acknowledge that there is crap in traditional media; the devaluing of our culture extends to them as well. In my opinion, it isn't happening as fast in traditional media as it is on the internet. That's basically my point, and you continue to ignore it so you can feel like the righteous underdog beating up on the elitist in the name of the people.

The eliticism comes from you're holier than thou attitude. As if...you are some how...above the crap. Not complicent in it. You even defended yourself and this forum...as if it's anything other than a dearth of...well...mostly stupidity. You might as well call this place a fine example of the internet and normal media in general.

I didn't defend this forum; I merely identified that it is one of the better forums on the internet, which is true. I also identified that it too has seen much crap. That is also true. I fail to see how I have defended this forum.

Am I above "this crap"? I'm not going to answer that question, since it's a very loaded question.

This might actually carry a little weight if your friend who couldn't get hired was taken seriously in the real world. But he's just another conspiracy nut. Internet, or no internet, he's still just a nut that nobody will take seriously. And you're completely WRONG about quality control. Particularly when it comes to various forms of art that are found on the net and used for publication. Mainly because the total body of meterial on the internet that publishers sift through at any given day is much, much, much broader than what existed before the internet. Publishing firms wouldn't scour forums for writing and photography if they couldn't make money off of it. And those ametuer's, without degrees, that haven't been hired, they are still held to the same standards as the pros.

Stop right there. You don't know what you are talking about. Publishers of writing do not sift through forums looking for talent. They don't do that at all. I have no idea where you pulled that from. Quite the opposite, in fact. Publishers nowadays do not accept unsolicited submission. All submissions to publishers usually must be agented. They used to take unsolicited and unagented material, but for a while now they've been under such a deluge of crap (now almost anyone can knock out 100,000 words) that they've just had to toss it all out and restrict their submissions to referrals from agents. This is a dysfunctional byproduct of the technological advance that has made writing books easier.

You make it sound as though traditional media outlets that you hail as so holier than thou, have since lowered their standards upon the advent of the internet. And that simply is not the case.

No, I haven't. I wish you to stop twisting my words around. What I have said is that traditional media is experiencing the same devaluation that the internet is, only that it has happened to a lesser extent than on the internet. I don't know how many times I have to say that before you get it.

Damn me for misquoting you. Damn me. And that's what I focused on in my original post. Just your one line on literature. I'm so bad with misquoting people.

You took it totally out of context. That was a hyperbolic example of how traditional media is still superior in terms of quality than the internet largely is.

Oh let's see. This is television and most print media too.

Stupidity? All sitcoms. All reality television. Cavemen? Come on. Partisan hackery? Every American news broadcasting agency. Nudity? Cinemax, HBO. Not happy with that? Go to video store, or a porn store. Yeah, the internet just warps reality into another level of crap...It makes people dumber.

No, I haven't. I wish you to stop twisting my words around. What I have said is that traditional media is experiencing the same devaluation that the internet is, only that it has happened to a lesser extent than on the internet. I don't know how many times I have to say that before you get it.

Who cares? Nobody reads those blogs. 25 people doesn't count. So who cares? They are losers who didn't get published with our without the internet. Having a blog on MySpace doesn't mean you're published. It just means you're another loser with a MySpace account, who'd still be a loser without it. You're not on some sort of higher level. Those same rigorous standards for actual writers still exist. It's not like they've been eroded away.

No they haven't, but people have abandoned them to the extent that publishers have to enforce them far more rigorously than ever before.

 

[fishjie]

Nope, it's evolution!

lolg omg liek i totaly disagreez wit u kthxbai

When you look at all the information on the internet, it's not so wonderful. There's lots of information, but little knowledge. The internet gives people the power to pick and choose their facts, their very reality, since any random douche can set up a website to promote his shallow political agenda.

Do a google search for "WTC 7" and you'll see what I mean.

there's lots of information in books too that have a clear and specific bias. tolstoy had a STRONG pro russian anti napolean bias in war and peace. but i was able to detect it. why? a thing called common sense. it helps to have that whenever assimilating any kind of information, be it from a book or teh interwebz.

also, some things just aren't open to debate. like i said, i use the internet to do my job. if i need to know how to use xml-dml to modify some xml in a sql server 2005 database, i can get that info instantly. there is plenty of knowledge to be gained from the internet.

my ONLY complaint, and this one is legitimate, is that its MURDERING magazines. books will always have a place, but i've noticed that magazines are dying out (RIP dragon magazine, RIP dungeon magazine). more and more mags are moving their content online, and shrinking their print publications. its sad, because i love reading mags. but i sense their days are numbered.

oh and newspapers are pretty much slaughtered as well.

 

[Merkinball]

Why would I have to identify it? I've already qualified it as being just my opinion, based on what I've seen with my own two eyes. What I've seen is that even the worst stuff in print and on television has historically been light years ahead of what you can find on the internet. Now, once again you completely miss a very important statement I've made: I acknowledge that there is crap in traditional media; the devaluing of our culture extends to them as well. In my opinion, it isn't happening as fast in traditional media as it is on the internet. That's basically my point, and you continue to ignore it so you can feel like the righteous underdog beating up on the elitist in the name of the people. - LesCandiens

That's a two way street though. I really don't think what you say validates what the woman in the opening post says with your mere opinion, and the evidence that you see. In some respects, I would say that the internet has opened up various avenues that have benefited intellectuality that would have otherwise been completely shut out if only the mainstream press and traditional media's were still in place.

I didn't defend this forum; I merely identified that it is one of the better forums on the internet, which is true. I also identified that it too has seen much crap. That is also true. I fail to see how I have defended this forum. - LesCanadiens

How is this any different than any other forum on the net? It's no different than any other gaming community, or any other conglomerate community. It's not really all too different than any of the dozen or so forums that I've ever been apart of in the last decade.

Publishers of writing do not sift through forums looking for talent. - LesCanadiens

Oh yes they do. I could point you to a number of publications that do so. Many publications also take open submissions from anyone on the internet.

This is how a lot of short story authors become published today.

Publishers nowadays do not accept unsolicited submission. All submissions to publishers usually must be agented. They used to take unsolicited and unagented material, but for a while now they've been under such a deluge of crap (now almost anyone can knock out 100,000 words) that they've just had to toss it all out and restrict their submissions to referrals from agents. This is a direct result of the technological advance that has made writing books easier. -

As of 2003, this wasn't the case. And I certainly hope you're not limiting your definition of literature to anything that's over 100,000 words.

No they haven't, but people have abandoned them to the extent that publishers have to enforce them far more rigorously than ever before. - LesCanadiens

So then what's the problem?

And again, let's not be ignorant and pretend like everything sold in Wal*Mart is anythign other than complete drivel.

 

[Phlegmak]

I submit to your fearsome rebuttal. Truly, you have humbled me with your fantastic debate skills.

You deserve a for that childish remark.

I wasn't trying to rebut. I was simply saying there's no point trying to convince you anymore so I wasn't going to try anymore.

 

[LulThyme]

i'd would expect that education + the fact that technology will be present in practically everything we use in the near future would make it practically impossible to be technophobic (Amish and ppl with some psychosis excluded).

Well I think the opposite, but it's hard to really argue either way.
A long time ago, even the notion of "progress" didn't really exist.
Technological change was so slow that being technophobic was impossible.


Now, progress is so fast that there is a huge difference between the present and the world a 60 year old knew as a kid.
You are right that things like education may HELP, but the basic cause of the problem is only increasing.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Les Canadiens,

You said that the Internet "devalues our culture". What does that mean? Explain how, causally, the Internet "devalues" our culture. I have a feeling that you're going to have to define "to devalue" and "culture" to do this, but I want to know where you're coming from here. I just don't see it at all.

I didn't realize the implication of my use of "to let". Fine, get rid of it.

"I don't see how people writing insipid poetry on their MySpace pages has any affect whatsoever on the production of genuinely sophisticated poetry elsewhere."

And I still don't. You haven't really addressed how giving voices to most people -- voices that in no way "drown out" the traditional media, since there's essentially an unlimited amount of space on the Internet -- in any way affects the quality of other work.

Regarding the political media -- obviously "news blogs" (whatever that is . . . Drudge?) can't do reporting, since they don't have reporters. Reporting news will always be the province of news organizations. But the Internet provides commentary on the news, and the best commentary found on the Internet is light-years ahead of the best commentary in the traditional media.

You also point to the idea that any random person can start a website to promote their political agenda. Yes, I suppose that's true. And if it's crazy, no one will read it. Problem solved. But if it's good, they'll get an audience. Is that a better system than allowing only certain people onto certain newspapers' editorial boards by criteria that the public don't know, and without meaningful accountability? I say, "Yes!"

And I'm sure lots of people throughout history have called democracy "anarchy", but calling it that doesn't make it so.

I'm Cleo!

 

[Che Guava]

Che Guava,

I agree 100% that people have to be more skeptical and more prone to think critically. But that's a general critique of American society (for me, at least), not one of the medium.

I guess I tend to think of it as akin to the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. It's perfectly valid, but the fact remains that some nut with a gun can do a lot more damage than with a crossbow. Do we dump guns and go back to rocks and spears? Of course not, but we realize that with new technology comes new challenges and new dangers, and information abuse can be just as harmful to our society as weapons in the hands of the wrong people.

I follow politics closely, and just look at how the media have defined the narratives for elections for . . . well . . . at least as long as there've been media (Spanish-American War?). Is critical thinking a more important skill in situations where you have a media establishment with little accountability, or where you have an explosion of varied -- and, as you correctly point out, frequently erroneous -- viewpoints? I don't think the answer is clear, aside from a belief that there should be more skepticism generally.

Skepticism is always required, and in generous doses. The problem with the internet, IMHO, is that it is big on information, short on memory. If FOX/CNN/BBC gets something wrong, they can be held accountable either in the court of public opinion, or in the worst cases, in the courts. Internet rumours/'facts'/and opinions generally come from the faceless mob, and the mob can afford to gbe callous, sloppy and irresponsible because there is no reputation at stake. You can close down your blog tomorrow and start a new one if you like, with a new identity and without a mark on your credibility.

In terms of credibility and resonsibility, I tend to rate media (GENERALLY) along the following gradient: Print media > Broadcast media > Internet media. The slower, more continous and unchangeable' the media (once it is out there), the more accountable it is to its readership, and the more conservative with facts and reporting it will be...

I'm Cleo!

Yes yes, bloody yes, we all know your name!

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Che Guava,

I think you have a more positive view of how well the traditional media function than I do. How can accountability be brought to major news sources without some kind of alternative medium like the Internet? Look at Election 2000, where countless lies about Al Gore spread through the traditional media with no one ever stopping to refute them (e.g., he claimed he invented the Internet, he claimed he was the inspiration for Love Story, he claimed his mother sang him union songs -- all demonstrably false). The traditional media still haven't acknowledged that they spread falsehoods for two years leading up to the election, and why should they? Why would the traditional media outlets, who define the narratives for political discourse in the United States, let people know that they were wrong about something, rather than maintain their position at the top of the heap? The People find out about things through the media -- why would the media tell The People that they've done a bad job? Look at what happened when Google Cache was introduced -- people found a number of cases where the New York Times and Washington Post websites retroactively edited their reporting without telling anyone, frequently changing the meaning of politically-charged stories. Traditional media simply aren't subject to accountability. If the Internet plays a role at all, it increases that accountability.

And I have no idea what the courts can do about it. It's extremely difficult to sue publishers for defamation in the United States (rightly so), and how are people going to find out about it anyway? Through the media, who were just sued? It's like that case from Florida about falsifying the news at the request of advertisers -- a federal judge ruled that the news organization's employees couldn't take advantage of federal whistleblower protection not because their claims were false (the judge found that they were, in fact, true), but because falsifying the news isn't a crime. Needless to say, the news station reported that they were cleared of wrongdoing.

You can close down your blog tomorrow and start a new one if you like, with a new identity and without a mark on your credibility.

Yes, and if what you write is crap, still nobody's going to read it. I don't see the problem with people starting blogs and writing crap, if the structure also results in some more people starting blogs and writing good stuff. I also think that more information is better, as such. You're going to get more crazies, but I think the benefits to democracy from a much freer exchange of information vastly outweigh the drawbacks. The Internet is a Jeffersonian-democracy, marketplace-of-ideas wet dream. No cost publishing! No "drown out"!

 

[Molybdeus]

The internet is a vast sea of stupidity, partisan hackery, and nudity.

I agree. The problem is that you assume the conventional media is any different.

 

[Taliesin]

It's ok Cleo. What the high brow elitist forgot to mention was all modern poetry sucks because they decided it didn't have to have rhyme, rhythm or meter anymore. It's not poetry now, it is just trash.

I would revise this to state that it's easier to detect that sucky modern poetry sucks, because of the explosion of traditional verse forms. Most poetry has always been mediocre at best, it's just that it used to require some vocabulary and metrical sense to put together bad poetry. Try reading some late Romantic or Victorian poems, Swinburne for instance, and you'll see a lot of what Pope lampooned here:

But most by Numbers judge a Poet's Song,
And smooth or rough, with them, is right or wrong;
In the bright Muse tho' thousand Charms conspire,
Her Voice is all these tuneful Fools admire,
Who haunt Parnassus but to please their Ear,
Not mend their Minds; as some to Church repair,
Not for the Doctrine, but the Musick there.
These Equal Syllables alone require,
Tho' oft the Ear the open Vowels tire,
While Expletives their feeble Aid do join,
And ten low Words oft creep in one dull Line,
While they ring round the same unvary'd Chimes,
With sure Returns of still expected Rhymes.
Where-e'er you find the cooling Western Breeze,
In the next Line, it whispers thro' the Trees;
If Chrystal Streams with pleasing Murmurs creep,
The Reader's threaten'd (not in vain) with Sleep.

Eliot reflected in a short essay "On Vers Libre" that free verse doesn't really exist: every sentence has its metre, and the poetic worth of a line does not depend on its being the same length as the one before it, or rhyming regularly. This means that those who say "metre is outdated" and go about their business are only fooling themselves; but it also means that "the lines are irregular and don't rhyme" isn't an adequate criticism of a poem, either. If anything, experimentation with irregular rhyme and metre renders the poet's language utterly naked and exposed to critical scrutiny, by removing the pleasurable distractions.

Fragmentation and explosion of form is fundamental to the modern period, in poetry no less than in music and literature.