It is no coincidence that Oxford University Press yesterday announced the “2024 Oxford Word of The Year” is “brain rot.” (Ironically, “brain rot” is technically two words and not one, but I digress.)
The first recorded use of the term apparently was in American writer Henry David Thoreau’s book “Walden” reporting on his experiences of living a simple lifestyle in the natural world, Oxford noted, where he wrote: “While England endeavours to cure the potato rot, will not any endeavour to cure the brain-rot – which prevails so much more widely and fatally?” [I note that Thoreau made it a hyphenated word.]
Oxford explained in its announcement, “Thoreau criticizes society’s tendency to devalue complex ideas, or those that can be interpreted in multiple ways, in favour of simple ones. He sees this as indicative of a general decline in mental and intellectual effort, leading him to ask the question.” Oxford further explained that the phrase was “adopted by Gen Z and Gen Alpha,” gaining new prominence in 2024, “as a term used to capture concerns about the impact of consuming excessive amounts of 'low-quality online content,' especially on social media. A noun, 'brain rot' is defined as the assumed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material − particularly online content − considered to be trivial or unchallenging. It also is defined as 'something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.'”
Oxford Languages President Casper Grathwohl is quoted as saying, “‘Brain rot’ speaks to one of the perceived dangers of virtual life, and how we are using our free time. It feels like a rightful next chapter in the cultural conversation about humanity and technology. It’s not surprising that so many voters embraced the term, endorsing it as our choice this year.“
Shakespeare in Hamlet, knowing of its Biblical use, put the words in Hamlet’s mouth: “Oh, woe is me, T’ have seen what I have seen, see what I see!” (Hamlet Act 3, scene 1)
I'm a high school English teacher, and I wholeheartedly concur. We still read novels and plays, but it has become difficult because many students can't (or won't) focus long enough to read on their own.. Most of the time I will play an audio version, but I do require that students read along. At least that way, I can stop and discuss things, and the students are still able to say they "read" it. It's not optimal, but I feel like at least they are grappling with those difficult texts and the life questions they raise. We just finished MACBETH in my 10th grade classes, and students actually enjoyed it and we have had some great discussions about it. As Mark Twain famously said, "The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the one who cannot read." I would hope that somehow the pendulum swings back because reading words on paper allows the reader to pause, examine, re-read and re-examine. Most people who passively watch or listen do none of that.
I was and am quite literate. I was assessed at reading 12th grade level in 5th grade. Yet even I struggled with Shakespeare in high school as well as the Scarlett Letter. I read the Scarlett Letter as a freshman in college for the fun of it and enjoyed it.
In short, I think using literature from the 1500s and early 1700s is NOT a valid measure of student literary skills in 2024. You need to use more modern literature for that assessment and then expose them to the earlier stuff later as they get more advanced
Perhaps we should look at it as a "full circle" - the advent of audiobooks etc are bringing us back to the pre-literate era of oral tradition- for good or ill?
I personally prefer a book - a real book- to audio. I can read faster than someone can read TO me. I also prefer a book - a real book - over E-books.
It is no coincidence that Oxford University Press yesterday announced the “2024 Oxford Word of The Year” is “brain rot.” (Ironically, “brain rot” is technically two words and not one, but I digress.)
The first recorded use of the term apparently was in American writer Henry David Thoreau’s book “Walden” reporting on his experiences of living a simple lifestyle in the natural world, Oxford noted, where he wrote: “While England endeavours to cure the potato rot, will not any endeavour to cure the brain-rot – which prevails so much more widely and fatally?” [I note that Thoreau made it a hyphenated word.]
Oxford explained in its announcement, “Thoreau criticizes society’s tendency to devalue complex ideas, or those that can be interpreted in multiple ways, in favour of simple ones. He sees this as indicative of a general decline in mental and intellectual effort, leading him to ask the question.” Oxford further explained that the phrase was “adopted by Gen Z and Gen Alpha,” gaining new prominence in 2024, “as a term used to capture concerns about the impact of consuming excessive amounts of 'low-quality online content,' especially on social media. A noun, 'brain rot' is defined as the assumed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material − particularly online content − considered to be trivial or unchallenging. It also is defined as 'something characterized as likely to lead to such deterioration.'”
Oxford Languages President Casper Grathwohl is quoted as saying, “‘Brain rot’ speaks to one of the perceived dangers of virtual life, and how we are using our free time. It feels like a rightful next chapter in the cultural conversation about humanity and technology. It’s not surprising that so many voters embraced the term, endorsing it as our choice this year.“
Shakespeare in Hamlet, knowing of its Biblical use, put the words in Hamlet’s mouth: “Oh, woe is me, T’ have seen what I have seen, see what I see!” (Hamlet Act 3, scene 1)
To bring it forward, “Woe is we.”
I'm a high school English teacher, and I wholeheartedly concur. We still read novels and plays, but it has become difficult because many students can't (or won't) focus long enough to read on their own.. Most of the time I will play an audio version, but I do require that students read along. At least that way, I can stop and discuss things, and the students are still able to say they "read" it. It's not optimal, but I feel like at least they are grappling with those difficult texts and the life questions they raise. We just finished MACBETH in my 10th grade classes, and students actually enjoyed it and we have had some great discussions about it. As Mark Twain famously said, "The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the one who cannot read." I would hope that somehow the pendulum swings back because reading words on paper allows the reader to pause, examine, re-read and re-examine. Most people who passively watch or listen do none of that.
I was and am quite literate. I was assessed at reading 12th grade level in 5th grade. Yet even I struggled with Shakespeare in high school as well as the Scarlett Letter. I read the Scarlett Letter as a freshman in college for the fun of it and enjoyed it.
In short, I think using literature from the 1500s and early 1700s is NOT a valid measure of student literary skills in 2024. You need to use more modern literature for that assessment and then expose them to the earlier stuff later as they get more advanced
Perhaps we should look at it as a "full circle" - the advent of audiobooks etc are bringing us back to the pre-literate era of oral tradition- for good or ill?
I personally prefer a book - a real book- to audio. I can read faster than someone can read TO me. I also prefer a book - a real book - over E-books.
"Wait a minute, wait a minute- you ain't heard NOTHIN' yet. Wait a minute, I tell ya- you ain't heard NOTHIN' ".