"Just as we would not traditionally assume that someone is literate if they can read but not write, we should not assume that someone possesses media literacy if they can consume but not express themselves" (176).
Harry Potter attracted an enormous fan base, another example of Jenkins' notion of participatory culture. Young fans began writing their own stories about Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and its students. These grassroots individuals find themselves in conflict with corporate media producer's interests. While it may seem like a good thing that Harry Potter inspired thousands of young adults to create their own literature, media producers see it as a threat to their intellectual property. While teachers see the books as inspiring, the executives at Warner Bros., who had the movie rights the books did not agree. Here we see an example of how the interests of grassroots participants and corporate executive can come into conflict - the relationship between the two in a culture of convergence is not always a mutually beneficial one.
Jenkins' choice to talk about a book series opens up questions of the definition of literacy, a topic we have already seen in Deborah Brandt's writing. In the "Potter Wars"as they were called, literacy does not just refer to printed words, but also the ability to "read" media. This connection to literact debates adds legitimacy and nuance to his argument. That is, is literacy as widespread as we like to think? The young readers who were inspired by JK Rowling's series increased their literacy skills - but are there barriers in place, as Brandt suggests, that limit literacy? Jenkins talks about corporate interest as one of those barriers leading to problems in literacy. Brandt's article makes me raise the question: who were these young readers, and what kind of exposure to literature might they have in Warner Bros interest were not a factor?
No comments:
Post a Comment