On Sibylline Leaves, Political Saturnalia, and Death

Today I have a lot of random thoughts that popped up as I read for today. Most of what follows could best be classified as unfinished thoughts (if you're nice). After reading Andie Tucher's chapter "Periodical Press: Newspapers, Magazines, and Reviews," a few things caught my eye. First, I feel less bad about the "press" that Americans are delighted to read about today, because apparently it's always been pretty bad. It seems that the American public has always concerned itself with all that they should not waste their time reading, and that brings me comfort. I wonder if I'm having my generational moment when I claim that things were better in the good old days. When I was younger kids read more and paid more attention to texts. Did they really? Has my experience with books altered the way I view the differences between the generations. Unfortunately, I think that it has kept me from trying to understand how young people read now and prohibited me from trying to find the good in what is happening today with regards to literacy. As books and printed pages gradually become "Sibylline leaves" (as fellow Ohioan Dr. Daniel Drake recalls), does the quality of what we read diminish or has it simply transformed into something new? Regardless, I am confident that something good will come of this transition, and I only hope that I am part of what happens next.

Watch out Martin! It's the W.H.H. Express!

I feel better about the state of politics today, because nothing has changed. Again, I will claim that what is really exceptional about the United States is the fact that we are still here and we made it through the muck of the nineteenth century. I like how selling "the sizzle, not the steak" began with the election of 1840 and has become the dominant means of getting a candidate elected today. I think the Sizzler should have jumped in on this somehow and started a cheeky advertising campaign talking about how they are more than just the sizzle. Wait, nevermind ... Sizzler does just sell the sizzle. In order for them to sell the steak, they would actually need to sell something identifiable as steak. As dire as the news cycle makes everything seem, I think that it is simply the status quo. As much as the status quo displeases me, it has managed to get us through to this point. I'm not about to uproot two hundred years of mediocre tradition to try something new, because it would probably mean that I would have to work more.

Now on to a fun topic: death. It seems that Tucher describes the lifespan of periodicals much as one would a living organism: "By 1820, Tennessee and Kentucky had given birth to some one hundred thirty newspapers between them, of which fewer than thirty were still living" (396). She goes on to state to discuss the hard knocks of magazine life: "[B]y the end of the century, out of perhaps a hundred attempts, only two had lived as long as eight years. Most had died within a year of their founding" (397). I'll blame this observation on ignorance. Tucher could just be using the correct vocabulary when discussing this topic, but even if she is, there could be something gleaned from this usage. What does it say about us if we refer to our printed materials as living beings? What does that say about us if we don't? Does that idea transfer over to electronic media? Sadly, there seem to be more questions than answers when it comes to this idea of print as a living entity (at least for me).