Seriously thoughtful When Would You Rather Live Your Life?

[distant.star]

I came across an interesting statement in The New York Times recently. It's in a piece discussing the HBO Network's upcoming new show "Boardwalk Empire." Discussing historical research they said:


The research even extended to the way people talked in the ’20s. “I didn’t want it just to be a caricature, where everybody was saying ‘23 skidoo’ all the time,” Mr. Winter explained, and so he studied old newspapers and magazines and carefully read the documentarylike novels of John Dos Passos. Books, of all things, are prominent props in “Boardwalk Empire.” One of the characters is reading a novel by Henry James; another keeps a copy of Sinclair Lewis with him.

“I hate to say it, but before TV people spoke better and were better read than we are,” Mr. Winter said. “They were probably more literate.”


This made me wonder if people who highly value books and reading, and by extension literacy, would prefer to live in a time when books and authors were revered. Someone at the water cooler might actually raise a discussion from "The Great Gatsby." On the other hand, we might prefer to live in an age of reduced literacy where we can individually access countless great books on inconspicuous little electronic reading devices.

So, I ask the question. If you had to choose...?

[Falcao]

I'm not sure that people were more literate then. Just like the movable type helped to disseminate knowledge, the internet brings book to our fingertips (or e-readers).

In any case I have a fancy about Middle Ages. I'm pretty sure I was a copyist in other life.

[jhempel24]

Right now...no other time period...I would say Middle Ages, but then if I wasn't nobility, life would kind of suck because of all the crap they could do to you, and I would be really dirt poor and not just barely holding on for dear life....oh wait...how's that different than now? LOL.

[JeremyR]

I think there is no question that the period from 1900 to 1950 was the most literate era

That said, back in the 20s not everyone was talking about the "classics". Many of the popular books back then were every bit as much drivel as the popular books now. And then you had stuff like the pulp magazines. Which I absolutely love, but overall was not high quality.

And even for the nobility, life sucked in the Middle Ages. You just got to order people around.

[recluse]

I would rather exchange the life I'm currently stuck with for one more suited to my tastes and high standards.
Then I could honestly decide when I would rather be living it.
As it stands, my best answer is never.

[nohmi2]

I would have to honestly have to say 'right now'. A lot of the goodies (internet,all gadgets) would have been great to have in the past. Maybe I am one of the lucky ones who is quite happy with their lot in life.

Cheers

[Lady Fitzgerald]

If I had been born in an earlier period of time, I would have never lived to the age I am now. I'm satisfied with living in the time I'm in now (although if I could be younger and still know what I know now, that would be nice).

[Luke King]

I'd say now, or fifty years from now. And I don't honestly think any time has been more literate than today. The difference with writers pre-1950, and writers today, is that they were, by-and-large, white men from privileged backgrounds. Today, anyone can be an writer.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by distant.star

would prefer to live in a time when books and authors were revered. On the other hand, we might prefer to live in an age of reduced literacy where we can individually access countless great books on inconspicuous little electronic reading devices.

I like your question. It is about books and authors, not about general conditions of life, comfort or any appeasement.

In Tuscany, in the XIII century there were public readings of Dante. That was a nice time and place to live I think, according to your criteria, and in general terms also, except for minor inconveniences like the plague. Nothing special then from the negative side.

The image is from a castle near by where i was born and it shows the fountain of youth. It looks like they were having a good time. And that they had few basic problems solved already. It also gives the idea that books might not be the best way to ...

[ardeegee]

I'd rather live further in the future, when all copyright laws have collapsed, everything ever written is available for free, ebooks readers roll up and fit in your pocket, and everyone finally has flying cars and sexbots.

[GhostHawk]

I'm like Lady F, never would have made it if I hadn't been born back in the 50's.

Most days I manage to be tickled pink just to be here.
As for literary works, well to my mind mobileread blows all the old coffee houses, and water cooler talk right out of the water.

We have the best of it all right here, and for the most part, the people here tend to be on the cutting edge. Informed, educated, well read. How does it get any better than that?

[ellimak]

If I had lived any time before... let's say 1960, I would have basically no rights. Soooo I'm gonna have to go with the present. Setting aside that factor though, I think I would still choose to live in the present. I mean, we can fly halfway round the world in less than a day. That is simply amazing.

As far as increased literacy between 1900 and 1950, I really believe our society is more literate than we give ourselves credit for. I see people reading all the time, everywhere I go. Admittedly, I live in a city with tons of public transportation and lots of students, but even so, I see people reading both pbooks and ebooks in abundance.

[Maggie Leung]

The future. Literacy is great, but it's not enough.

[church mouse]

For me, now or in an even better future.

My parents were poor but I got a good State education and became a lawyer.

My partner's parents were poor immigrants from India. My partner got a good State education, got in to Civil Rights then became a lawyer.

I am white, sort of Muslim. My partner is British Indian and Sikh. Her daughter is mixed race and atheist.

And today, none of this makes any difference to us, our friends, family or just about anyone we ever come in to contact with here in Britain.

When, at any point in the past would that have been true, no matter how well read the people may have been?

[Worldwalker]

I don't think there has ever really been a time which combined wide literacy and easy availability of books with conditions what were otherwise safe to live in.

Take, say, the Middle Ages. Let's say that you lucked out, and instead of an illiterate, starving peasant, you got to be a rich, literate noble (hard enough, since many nobles were illiterate too). You would have access to a library. If you were really lucky, it might hold ... 50 books. Any time pre-Gutenberg is just going to royally suck because there simply were no books, and few people to talk about books with.

Generally, any time and place prior to the 19th century, and outside a city, is going to be short on books and equally short on people who care about books. The lower classes worked, all the time, and when they weren't working, eating, or sleeping, they couldn't afford books anyway. When we think of someone with a lot of books, we're talking about dozens, not thousands. Upper classes could afford books, but very few did, because they had other, more important things to do with their time: visiting each other, for instance. If you were one of those oddballs who stayed in your room and read books, once again you'd be in the situation of having nobody to talk about your books with.

The exception has always been places where students and teachers gather. They have books, at least in the form of libraries, and they want to talk about their books. That's as much if not more true today as it was at any time in the past. If anything, the big difference today is places like MobileRead, where we can find each other and talk about books.

It's easy to look back and say that at some point in the past, some book was popular. The part that you never realize is that it might indeed have been popular among some segment of society, but they were the few who read, and it was that book, but not the hundreds of thousands of other books that we have access to today. Yes, there as a brief time in which people read because they had the literacy level to be able to read and the things they really wanted to do (TV, computer games, etc.) hadn't been invented yet, but there were fewer of them than we think, and in terms of sheer number of books read, they didn't come close.

So, personally, I'm quite happy about the time and place I live in. I certainly don't want to be a starving peasant, or someone with access to 50 whole books and thinking I'm lucky, or even someone living for any reason in the days of infantile paralysis and the iron lung. We have more books, and access to more books, today than anyone ever did in history, and if there are people who aren't interested in them, that's how it's always been; at least now we can find the people who are.