Analysis of Clive Thompson

In an article that was written last year, Clive Thompson introduces the topic of the new age of literacy. When it comes to the topic of kid's literacy levels, most of us will readily agree that kids can not write and technology is to blame. Where this argument ends, however, is on the question of are we right about kids not writing or are we actually looking towards a direction of a brighter future of literacy for kids. Whereas a professor from Stanford University is convinced "we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization." Others, like a professor from University College of London maintain that kids' writing is "bleak, bald, sad shorthand" and to blame is facebook blabbering, video, powerpoint and texting. Those factors have "dehyrated" the language he claims.

This discussion matters to us because we as students are part of this claim and we are contributing to us. This discussion is telling us we either are not good at writing or we are causing a revolution in our writing. This topic is very important and it determines what professors think of our writing skills. I have noticed in this text that they mention facebook encourages narcissitic blabbering and it is one of the many things that is to blame, according to the professor from Lonon, for our lack of writing. On the other side of this argument is the professor from Stanfords' team found that students were remarkably adept at what rhetoricians call kairos, which is assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across. Twitter and Facebook are to take credit for this. All of those status updates and chat messages have really added up for us. Thompson says ,"the modern world of online writing, particulary in chat and on discussion threads, is conversational public which makes it closer to the Greek tradition of arguemnt than the asynchronous letter and essay writing of 50 years ago." Thompson seems to agree with all of the ideas of Lunsford(Professor at Stanford) and questions all of Sutherland's(Professor at University College of London). He agress with all of the assumptions that technology have helped us.

One implication of Thompson's treatment of that technology has helped kids have better writing techniques is that he states, "The fact that students today almost write for an audience(something virtually no one in my generation did) gives them a different sense of what constitutes good writing." Thompson apparently assumes that the way kids write today is different and it is working good for us. Our way of writing, he assumes, gives people a different sense of great writing even though it is not typical.

My own view is I think we have a different style of writing but it has different criteria of what good writing is. Though I concede that technology isnt the only thing that has helped us have a different style of writing even from ten years ago, but I still maintain that technology is a big part of our success in writing. Although some may object that technology is not helping us at all, just frying our brains, I reply that it can do that to others who use it the wrong way and over use it but if you use it for the right reasons, it shows in our great writing. This issue is important to me because I am one of those kids whose writing is said to start a new era of writing. I think it is important that a professor from Stanford is saying technology is helping the generation become great writers, I am part of that generation. I do think that at times it may dry out our language in our essays and such but I dont think all kids write essays like that. John Sutherland's claims are too general and are vague. Andrea Lunsford is detailed. I agree that " technology isn't killing our ability to write, its reviving it and pushing our literacy in bold new directions." Technology is not always a negative on our generation, in this discussion it is actually a "push" towards a new direction in literacy.