The cult of book readers

Carey started out by trying to butter up the audience. Who, he asked for a show of hands, had read a work of literature in the past week. Of course, most people in the audience had. He noted how unlikely it would be to get such a high proportion of ‘yes’ answers in any other room around the country. He later referred to it as a cult of literature readers.

He further pandered to the audience by throwing in a few titbits about environmental destruction and indigenous injustice and sundry causes likely to please middle-aged armchair socialists.

He went on to discuss the importance of people who can read works of literature and serious nonfiction – not just newspapers and cereal boxes – to making informed political decisions. (I would argue that the ability to think critically and analyse statements in context are more important, but I’d just be called a postmodernist tosser.) But at the same time, he noted with despair the incredible dumbing down of society.

Dumbing down

As evidence of this dumbing down, Carey played a series of vox pops taken outside a Sarah Palin book signing at a Borders bookstore in Columbus, Ohio. These booklovers were unable to discuss with any clarity what Palin’s policies were, or why they were so opposed to the evil Democrats.

As further evidence, he noted that one of the top-selling books in Australia was the Master Chef Cookbook and not, if there were any justice in the world, a Peter Carey novel. (OK, I added that last bit.)

But these were cheap shots that proved nothing.

There’s nothing easier than finding a place where dumb Americans congregate, pointing a camera at them and letting them talk, as the Chaser’s Charles Firth could tell you. And popular entertainment doesn’t need to be highbrow. Though to be fair, it should probably not be completely stupid. Carey made a nice analogy about junk news and junk entertainment being as bad for the mind and junk food was for the body.

This claim of dumbing down has been made for decades and has been refuted almost as often. Ten years ago, the Guardian examined the issue in great detail and found no evidence that people today were dumber than past generations. Au contraire.

Goodbye to privileged knowledge (and good riddance?)

Beneath these claims of dumbing down lie a profound discomfort with what is actually going on – a vast, unprecedented smartening up; billions of people who have access to information through books, newspapers, television and of course the internet. And the destruction of barriers to entry into the elite domains of privileged knowledge that novelists and academics like Carey inhabit and fight to maintain.

Everyone can read. And everyone can publish. A lot of it will be rubbish. But so what?

The world does not have a limited amount of cleverness to go around. Sarah Palin may be a more successful book writer (by number of books sold) than Peter Carey, but that doesn’t make Carey’s work any less intelligent or special for those who appreciate it.

And if the theory that ‘dumb’ books like the Harry Potter series are a gateway drug – they actually encourage people to read, and even to read real books – is true, there may even be more people around to enjoy Parrot and Olivier in America.

Some very clever online businesses have sprung up based on this premise, making it easier for men to find clothes they want without having to go through an embarrassing ordeal.

I’m not like that, generally. Over the years I’ve found a few good shops and clothing labels that usually have stuff I like that fits me, where they don’t have crappy dance music at eardrum-bursting volume and where the staff are helpful and unpretentious.

Most of the time.

Not so this weekend, though, when I visited a very large department store in the CBD, renowned for its quality products and customer service.

Me: This is a nice shirt. Do you have one in my size?

Fashion retail person #1: (Flips through rack) No.

Me: Yes, I already looked there, that’s why I asked you. (Waits for fashion retail person to make helpful suggestion.)

Fashion retail person #1: (Starts sorting clothes hangers.)

In case you’re wondering, yes, at this point I checked if I could buy it online. The manufacturer had very pretty website that took 10 minutes to load on the iPhone (Yay Vodafone!) and, of course, no ecommerce capability. So, half an hour of fruitless shirt shopping later, I was back where I started, with a different person.

Me: This is a nice shirt. Could you please check if you have it in my size?

Fashion retail person #2: Yes, but I’m pretty sure all the stock we have is on the rack. I’ll check. (Goes out back)

Me: Well?

Fashion retail person #2: No.

Me: That’s a pity. Do any of your other stores have it in my size?

Fashion retail person #2: Let me see. (Twiddles computer) Yes, Chatswood. Can you get to Chatswood?

Me: It is not convenient. Can the Chatswood store send it here?

Fashion retail person #2: No. (Complicated explanation, I didn’t really pay attention after ‘no’.)

Me: Alright, I will take some time out of my work day to pick it up from Chatswood tomorrow, but only if they put it away so someone else doesn’t buy it before I get there.

Fashion retail person #2: (Spends 15 minutes on phone trying to find person in Chatswood store) I spoke to Alex, he said he’ll put it aside, but you have to get it tomorrow.

Me: OK.

The next day, in Chatswood…

Me: I had a shirt put away yesterday. Could you get it for me?

Fashion retail person #3: Hmm… I can’t find it. Was it a BRAND A shirt?

Me: No, it was BRAND B.

Fashion retail person #3: Oh! You need to go over to the BRAND C counter!

Me: (Goes to next counter) I had a shirt put away yesterday. Could you get it for me?

Fashion retail person #4: I can’t find it anywhere. Who put it away for you?

Me: I think his name was Alex.

Fashion retail person #4: Oh, ALEX. It doesn’t look like he put it away.

Me: (Speaking in the spirit of Homer Simpson trying not to swear, “Oh, fudge. That’s . . . broken. Fiddle dee dee. That will require a tetanus shot.” ) That is . . . unfortunate. I can see it over there on the shelf. Perhaps there’s still one in my size.

Fashion retail person #4: Here’s one.

Me: This has “XL” written in biro on the cardboard label but “L” on the shirt label. Are you sure it’s XL?

Fashion retail person #4: Oh yes, they found it was the wrong size and it’s really XL.

Me: Wouldn’t I better off getting this one over here that says “XL” on both labels?

Fashion retail person #4: Sure, if you like.

This is the hardest I have ever had to work to buy something, other than a car or property. Can anyone spot the dozen or so places along the way where the retailer made it harder for me to buy the shirt than it needed to be? And was it really such a nice shirt that it was worth all the aggro to get it?

How do businesses survive, treating customers with contempt? Is it only because all their competitors do the same? Surely there must be a huge opportunity for shops that sell clothes and help their customers buy them!

This could lead me to believe the majority of Australians are as passionate about internet censorship as me and my friends. But then I remember that most of my friends are university educated, left-leaning types who work in journalism or the IT industry.

This same selection bias is at work in the online community, particularly on Twitter. The sort of people who use Twitter, who blog, who read the IT media are precisely the sort of people who would oppose internet censorship.

This has led many people to believe if they make enough noise about it online, the Government will drop the filter. Unfortunately, this greatly overestimates the importance and influence of Twitter and social media generally when it comes to real-world politics.

Even an infinite number of angry posts on Twitter, sarcastic blog posts and articles in the IT press would still have no effect on Government policy. Politicians only care about who can deliver them blocs of votes in important electorates.

Online fame is fleeting, but mine was the top article on ABC's The Drum for a little while

As I argue on ABC’s The Drum blog, so far the Christian lobby – which is for the filter – is doing this a lot better than the disparate anti-filter coalition.

This is not to say the anti-censorship campaign is doomed. However, it needs to focus less on preaching to the choir and more on real-life, professional political lobbying.

It’s a big ask, particularly because many of the anti-censorship groups have little experience in direct political action. But it must be done if we are to convince the Government of the immense folly and dire (supposedly) unintended consequences of its current plans.