Literacy (is Re: Harry Potter)

[jbor]

> "teach children to watch TV? Ho
> ho ho ...".  God forbid they'd be able to identify, problematize, resist,
> even, say, the commericialization, sexism, racism, ageism, you name it, which
> serves as the background noise of daily live these days

Are you suggesting that these are new phenomena in the media (let alone art,
literature, "daily life")? Actually, a postmodern tv show like 'The
Simpsons' actually performs this type of self-deconstructive, didactic
function -- "unpacking, deconstructing, whatever, all those messages
coming in". There's no danger that kids nowadays'll simply aspire to become
Ozzie and Harriet when they grow up: they're not so easily fooled. I also
think that the definition of "literacy" being bandied about is a little
narrow. Children's (tele)visual literacy skills and computer literacy skills
possibly outstrip those of their parents in many cases. Cultural literacy is
another domain where the younger generation have it over us imo.

> Which is not
> to say DON'T slip 'em the Shakespeare

They tend to enjoy the postmodern 'Romeo and Juliet' (i.e. Luhrman's), and
Polanski's 'Macbeth', which are better than nothing.

best

----------
>From: "Dave Monroe" <monroe at mpm.edu>
>To: Terrance <Lycidas at worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: Harry Potter
>Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2000, 11:43 AM
>