rhyslindmark's review against another edition
5.0
4.5 stars.
Excellent history of what humans were like pre-writing (oral cultures), and how we changed with writing.
Less than 200 pages. Last chapter was meh (-0.5 stars).
Excellent history of what humans were like pre-writing (oral cultures), and how we changed with writing.
Less than 200 pages. Last chapter was meh (-0.5 stars).
anneliehyatt's review against another edition
4.0
A super easy and lively read, this book is very strong but it reads more like an essay to me than a book. I still love it though and think everyone should read this if they have the time
thepaige_turner's review against another edition
1.0
In 17 (school) weeks I won't have to do required reading like this anymore.
I'm thrilled.
I'm thrilled.
potsy's review against another edition
4.0
Seminal work on oral studies
This book gives a framework for how Orality is changed by literacy. It helps literate people understand better how oral learners intelligently think in different ways from those who are literate to some degree. It explains what writing has done to help us interiorize life and ourselves. It is a good foundation for further studies.
This book gives a framework for how Orality is changed by literacy. It helps literate people understand better how oral learners intelligently think in different ways from those who are literate to some degree. It explains what writing has done to help us interiorize life and ourselves. It is a good foundation for further studies.
an_enthusiastic_reader's review against another edition
5.0
A must-read for anyone who has thought about how print shaped human destiny and thought processes. I love this book.
steveatwaywords's review against another edition
5.0
Though somewhat dated in terms of its applications to theory and calls for further study, Ong's fundamental work is still relevant in terms of how little its implications have yet to reach our chirographically-biased consciousness, let alone the second orality and electronic media relevance in terms of sociological and psychological impacts. Once we can see the scale of the cognitive paradigms shaped by our modes/eras of literacy and note the divides between them, we must therefore think and teach and learn across the paradigms, not presume that the assumptions of one hold true for the next. Ong spells these out with striking clarity, beginning with Homer but reaching Kazantzakis and others, then cites areas which are rife for investigation. Forty years later, this still feels fresh.
schmub's review against another edition
2.0
I can't think of a book that has elicited such wide ranging responses from me. Parts of this are illuminated and provoking, and I'm sure were even more so at the time it was originally published. Other parts I found so unconvincing that I literally laughed out loud. The central argument--that literacy changes the way we think and can think--is not a particularly new one. However, Ong does provide a useful overview of how those living in a world of orality remembered, told stories, and generally understood the world in some key ways that differ from a post-literacy world. He also notes that scholars have often skipped over the key distinctions among a world centered around writing, a world centered around print, and a world centered around the digital--distinctions that the field of digital humanities, for example, has since documented and analyzed.
However, Ong often overstates a clear demarcation between orality and literacy. For example, he claims that "oral tradition has no such residue or deposit" as do written words, but shortly after, he notes that "the elements out of which a term is originally built usually, and probably always, linger somehow . . ." Later, he compares the inability to stop sound and still have sound to one's ability to "stop a moving picture and hold one frame fixed on the screen." This is not a parallel comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be to our inability to both stop and still have light, not something light produces, or the ability to pause a recording with that note still audible. In either of those cases, the difference Ong is trying to establish disappear. Similarly, he argues that vision is different from hearing in that the latter can register motion and immobility, but hearing can register silence and noise. And while it is true that there is never absolute silence, it's also true that there is never absolute immobility. These are just a few of the problems that undercut some of the otherwise intriguing work Ong does throughout the book.
However, Ong often overstates a clear demarcation between orality and literacy. For example, he claims that "oral tradition has no such residue or deposit" as do written words, but shortly after, he notes that "the elements out of which a term is originally built usually, and probably always, linger somehow . . ." Later, he compares the inability to stop sound and still have sound to one's ability to "stop a moving picture and hold one frame fixed on the screen." This is not a parallel comparison. A more appropriate comparison would be to our inability to both stop and still have light, not something light produces, or the ability to pause a recording with that note still audible. In either of those cases, the difference Ong is trying to establish disappear. Similarly, he argues that vision is different from hearing in that the latter can register motion and immobility, but hearing can register silence and noise. And while it is true that there is never absolute silence, it's also true that there is never absolute immobility. These are just a few of the problems that undercut some of the otherwise intriguing work Ong does throughout the book.
jthhhhhhhh's review against another edition
4.0
A really amazing book that changed the way I think about writing, language, and communication.
thebookshelfmonster's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
Of the various challenges that historical sources pose for history writing, the medium of record is the one that, as a historian, I struggle with the most. While all kinds of historical sources come with their specific set of challenges, the challenges involved in the use of oral traditions in writing about the past increase the farther back it goes from living memory.
Walter J. Ong in what is likely his most famous book Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word explores in his beautiful and clear prose various interpretations of the differences between oral and literate cultures. His major contention is that orality and literacy as technologies of communication and transmission of knowledge have "consciousness-altering" consequences for the culture and history of a society.
To me, one of the most interesting shifts that Ong theorizes on is that of the cognitive shifts from orality to literacy. Oral cultures require strategies of preserving information in the absence of writing, like a reliance on proverbs or condensed wisdom for making decisions, or through literary forms like epic poetry and stylized culture heroes, “… in heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions or antitheses, in alliterations and assonances, in epithetic and other formulary expressions, in standard thematic settings”.
Ong identifies memory as the basis for oral thought and style, wherein the medium of language itself must serve a mnemonic purpose by becoming narrativized and rhythmic “…for rhythm aids recall, even physiologically”. He argues that writing made these features no longer necessary, and introduced new strategies of remembering cultural material, which in turn engendered further technological innovation.
Walter J. Ong in what is likely his most famous book Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word explores in his beautiful and clear prose various interpretations of the differences between oral and literate cultures. His major contention is that orality and literacy as technologies of communication and transmission of knowledge have "consciousness-altering" consequences for the culture and history of a society.
To me, one of the most interesting shifts that Ong theorizes on is that of the cognitive shifts from orality to literacy. Oral cultures require strategies of preserving information in the absence of writing, like a reliance on proverbs or condensed wisdom for making decisions, or through literary forms like epic poetry and stylized culture heroes, “… in heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions or antitheses, in alliterations and assonances, in epithetic and other formulary expressions, in standard thematic settings”.
Ong identifies memory as the basis for oral thought and style, wherein the medium of language itself must serve a mnemonic purpose by becoming narrativized and rhythmic “…for rhythm aids recall, even physiologically”. He argues that writing made these features no longer necessary, and introduced new strategies of remembering cultural material, which in turn engendered further technological innovation.