the age of procrastination

Not wanting to have this post sound boring before I even begin, but I have to begin with this. I have two assignments left to complete to finish the semester. One in particular has roused my attention, the one where our essay should lead us to becoming an expert on the topic. I chose to research UNESCO Cities of Literature because I was genuinely interested in the reasoning behind the hype. The reason why Melbourne really can now claim to be the cultural capital of Australia, not that we Melbournians didn't already know this!

The research has been interesting, preserving cultural heritage in the world (among other things) is a fine and noble pursuit if you ask me (oh wait, you didn't). I have been especially struck by one article in particular. An opinion piece, from the Age, 2008, with no specified author. Well, none that I can find. Being a proud Gen Y I'm sure I can find the author of a newspaper article on a website, but the Age has got me this time! My amazing internet scrolling skills aside, this article blabs on about the wonder that is the Melbourne's new title, and then almost unwittingly hits on a key topic that I have (now) decided to focus on in my essay.

Literacy. Oh, to be literate. And what does it really mean? I would call myself a literate person (as opposed to an ambling alliterate asshole). Although I seem to attach some snobbery to the meaning. When I think of myself, 'a literate person', what immediately comes to mind is my hardcopy, green felt and gold gilt, Wordsworth copy of the collected works of Shakespeare. Yes, I have attached literacy to Shakespeare, and perhaps rightly so? If a person reads, comprehends (to whatever extent) and actually enjoys the master of words and literature, surely they should be allowed to don the charming title of 'literate'? And yet, there is surely many fine 'literate' folk out there who either dislike or just can't figure out Shakespeare. Shed some light on your numbers, un-Shakespeareans! Allow me to see your cause and know my argument is not false.

Which brings me to my next question, can literacy change? What with the evolution of the digital age (makes me sound old and as though I wasn't raised by a computer), reading, writing and other associated tasks have altered so radically. Attention spans have, I'm sure, shortened drastically. While I'm yet to find a reliable study to support my claim, I'm sure one will show up in the next few (20) years. With the beauty of 'flicking' (I'm waiting for this one to become a verb, like Googling), the age of procrastination is upon us! This may result in a breed of Gen Y and Z's who are efficient multitaskers, but I wonder as to the future of the book. Who has the time or effort to sit and read and philosophise over the collected works of Shakespeare? Me, obviously, but I'm finding me's few and far between. So can literacy change? How will we define literacy in 50 years? Not that I've even discussed how we define literacy now, and I'm sure this entire post is full of evidence quite contrary to my earlier claim of 'literacy', but Question and Answer is on soon, and I really just wanted to ramble for a short while. Apologies if I have wasted your time, but perhaps you are looking at the future of of what it means to be literate. Enjoy!

*Impressive art, yes?