The Practical Impact of Writing

After reading Roger Chartier’s “The Practical Impact of Writing,” my first thought is that the title is misleading. I expected to read a discourse on chirographic culture and the importance of writing. Instead, Chartier is concerned with reading, specifically increased literacy, the availability of books, and the impact of silent reading. I also have issues with some of Chartier’s language in the section on geography and literacy. He refers to northern Europe as “culturally more advanced” than the rest of the continent (122). He also calls southern Europe “backward” (122). Lower literacy rates do not indicate the level of culture.

On a more positive note, I enjoyed Chartier’s discussion of animosity toward writing. He uses the example of Jack Cade’s rebellion in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, to illustrate the reasons why some people rejected writing. Chartier also notes that there was hostility among the upper classes toward the proliferation of printed books. I absolutely agree with his assertion that the hostility stemed from the fact that those “who had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of the production and discussion of knowledge” were reluctant to relinquish power (125).

In the section on silent reading, Chartier claims printing “should not be credited with intellectual and psychological changes that were really the result of a new method of reading” (126). His comment seems to be an argument against Elizabeth Eisenstein. In response to his comment, I think Eisenstein would argue that printing brought about the widespread practice of silent reading, and was, thus, responsible for intellectual and psychological changes.

There were two topics briefly discussed in Chartier’s work which I would like to explore further. First, his observation about the relationship between reading and religion in America was interesting. I would like to read more about how American culture came to be defined by familiarity with the Bible. Second, Chartier notes that “in the eighteenth century the iconography of reading is exclusively female and secular, whereas previously it had been almost entirely male and religious” (135). What exactly brought about the shift to reading as a “female” activity?