Should Everybody Write?
Argument: The book expands on the recent democratization movements in writing; questioning whether technology has made the industry more energetic or too liberal.
The author talks about quality, summarizing that the internet has created numerous opportunities for authors to get their work out without going through the strict quality checks. Looking at the number of articles and eBooks published, this is a democratic solution, but not without flaws. Less quality control means content that is not enjoyable for people; it is hard to find the value among millions of websites. Quoting Henry David Thoreau, the author states that as not everyone has something valuable to say, not all should be allowed. Prior to the appearance of internet, publication was restricted to a few authors, who could meet the requirements. However, these requirements were also set by people and often influenced by politics.
Next, the author looks at the historical background of writing. One of the most important stages of development were Gutenberg’s printing machine, and it enabled the democratization of religion as well. He finds that the real problem is the “growing “amateurization ” of writing. This means that people write as a hobby, and not all writing is worth reading. In the age of search engine optimization, there are many sites written only to include keywords. Other people repeat themselves. If the internet was “quality checked” and censored, would it be a better place for readers? Or would editors restrict readers’ experience based on their taste? Baron concludes that information technology has destabilized the world of readers and writers alike.
Baron, D. Should everybody write? The destabilizing technologies of communication. Online. <http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people- /faculty/debaron/582/582%20pdfs/shouldwrite.pdf>