We should be involved in both oral and written discussions with people, and both have advantages and disadvantages. I've written before about my philosophy regarding activities like evangelism and apologetics, based partly on what Paul articulates in Colossians 4:5. Christians should be making the most of whatever opportunities they have, which obviously can't be limited to contexts involving writing. But, as I mentioned in another post, it's become common for people to make derogatory, dismissive comments about the internet (as they often have about other forms of new technology and new platforms on existing technology), and a majority of the opportunities most people have on the internet involve writing.
As I've mentioned in recent posts, there are some advantages to audio and video and shorter text formats, like Twitter. But there are disadvantages as well. People need to be more involved in reading and writing in contexts that involve more text, especially books. But I'll be addressing the written format in general here.
We need to keep in mind that distinct forms of communication can be related, yet still be distinct. The availability of transcripts of YouTube videos, for example, doesn't change the fact that transcripts of videos aren't the same as videos, the fact that probably only a small percentage of YouTube users make use of the transcripts, etc.
Writing has some significant advantages over alternatives. It involves more focus (the absence of distractions from audio and visuals). It's often more efficient (audio and video elements often being unneeded to communicate what needs to be communicated). It has greater searchability. It's easier to edit. Much of what previous generations and our own generation have given us isn't available in other formats. It's easier to preserve over time (e.g., text files take up less space than audio and video files; saving a quote or something else you come across is easier to do in a text format than in an audio or video format).
There are advantages that other formats have over writing. For example, audio is more useful than writing in multitasking contexts. Listening to something like music or watching something like a video of a historical event that's being researched provides some things that reading about that music or event wouldn't provide. I'm not discouraging the use of those other formats. But we should try to have the right balance.
At this stage of my life, I don't have time for expanding into YouTube, a podcast, or some other such format. I've already done so much of my work in writing, and I have good reasons for wanting to preserve and build upon my written work and the work of other people I've been affiliated with in those contexts. Since preserving that work and doing further writing don't leave me enough time for those other formats, I probably won't get involved with them anytime soon. Maybe I would in retirement, but I doubt it. Most of the work I do isn't advanced much by audio and video, so it would be inefficient to operate in those contexts most of the time. If I did anything like produce a video, I'd probably only do it a small minority of the time, such as in contexts in which audio and video are more relevant or to benefit people who can make use of videos in multitasking contexts. Doing well at oral communication involves certain skills, like gathering information in your mind quickly, quickly deciding how to articulate that information, and having a voice with certain qualities. If you're weak in one or more of those areas, you might be able to compensate for it elsewhere. But I'm weak enough in those contexts to make me think I wouldn't do well enough on a platform like YouTube or a podcast.
Somebody I've thought about in this context is the historian Philip Schaff. Much of what he produced in the nineteenth century, such as his church history and the patristic works he edited, is available on the internet and has influenced many millions of people. Who would have anticipated that in the nineteenth century? Who would have expected the combination between nineteenth-century publishing and the later technology involved in the internet and how Schaff's work would be disseminated and popularized to such a large extent so long after his death? (This is relevant to my quote of Augustine in an earlier post in this series. The edition of his letter I quoted comes from Schaff's collection of patristic works.) It's now gotten to the point where Schaff probably has had a bigger audience than the large majority of radio programs, television shows, and YouTube videos. It took a while to get there, but it eventually happened. You don't know what will develop with your work after you die, such as how something you did in one format using one type of technology will interact with other formats and other types of technology. A significant context here is the afterlife. Something you've done can influence many billions of people (and angels, etc.) on the day of judgment or in some other afterlife context.
And that's not true just of writing, but also of other kinds of work we're involved in. I'm focused on writing here, partly because writers have faced so much discouragement lately and are often told that they should be much more focused on YouTube, TikTok, or whatever else. But the principles I've outlined here have a broader application as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment