McKinney 1
Beth McKinney
Dr. Lang
ENG 1301 Instruction
8-14-13
Negative Predictions
Despite a title invoking forward motion, Sven Birkerts’s essay, “Into the Electronic
Millennium,” does not boldly go, as it were, into the electronic future. Birkerts’s essay, part of
his larger work The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age, was published
in 1994 and explores, or rather prods dubiously, at the (then) possible effects of advancing
technology on the written word. Birkerts’s observations of technical possibilities revolve not
just around the formatting of books, however, but delve into the act of writing and reading, the
very processing of information. For Birkerts sees the fate of information exchange affecting
society at large. Although Sven Birkerts provides interesting information on the potential
outcomes of changing technology with regards to access and absorption of information, his
article “Into the Electronic Millennium” paints a bleak future for the exchange of information
through his pervading negative word choice, focus on adverse results, and admissions to
apprehension.
One way in which Birkerts reveals his intent of casting the electronic future in a negative
light is through his word choice. Birkerts takes care in his phrasing to lend an adverse tone
towards developing technology. As the essay progresses, Birkerts’s trepidation becomes much
more frank, but it is his more subtle reserve in the beginning that prepares a reader to accept the
increasing hostility of Birkerts’s views. For example, early in the essay Birkerts discusses the
differences in print communication, i.e. physical copy, and electronic communication, during
McKinney 2
which he describes print as “essentially private” and “traditional” (226-227). Birkerts establishes
an image of intimacy and stability for print communication, but his word choice shifts for
describing the electronic side. He instead chooses words like “impinge,” “evanescent,” and
“sacrificed” (Birkerts 227). Birkerts establishes that these two forms of communication are
different for the purposes of his essay, but his precise choice of phrasing invites a sense of
unsettling rudeness, or perhaps violence, to color the electronic information. This tendency
towards a negative tone of voice becomes clearly purposeful on the author’s part with a shift in
the type-face in the fourth paragraph. The article reads, “Transitions like the one from print to
electronic media do not take place without rippling, or more likely, reweaving the entire social
and cultural web” (Birkerts 227). Firstly, Birkerts is not content with the word “rippling” but
continues the sentence to restate and thus emphasize his point. Secondly, and importantly,
Birkerts restates using a more violent verb, “reweaving,” implying something was taken apart,
and he puts the word in italics, drawing further attention. The use of italics shows Birkerts’s
awareness of his word choice.
In addition to using word choice to lure the reader into a negative interpretation, Birkerts
structures the essay to continuously focus and refocus on the adverse effects of technology. If
the word choice provides the tone, then the discussed potential results of growing electronic
communication provides the rhythmic drumbeat to keep the reader in line. When Birkerts
discusses a potential effect of technology, he structures the effect not like a report of information,
but rather like a counterargument. He represents the effect, but then uses refutation to counter
potential positive views. The pattern of representation and refutation shows up most clearly
starting on page 228 with his “exhibits,” which showcase other viewpoints, represented by
outside sources, with regards to advancing technology. In Birkerts’s “exhibit” of Robert Zich,
McKinney 3
for example, he notes that Zich works for the Library of Congress and is not just another “Silicon
Valley research and development visionary” (230-231). Birkerts shows awareness of the voices
he needs to contradict, those flaws in his argument, and takes steps to do so.
During the representation portion of Birkerts discussion of Zich’s views, it could appear
that Birkerts is indeed simply providing information on the developments of the “Electronic
Millennium.” He takes the time to mention the things Zich is looking forward to: “the possibility
of memory cards” and “a screen that will display the contents of whatever electronic card you
feed it” (Birkerts 231). The positive views of those like Zich have space and attention in the
essay. The counterargument structure, however, does not allow the reader to linger and compile
these positives attributes of the various positive viewpoints. Instead, Birkerts refutes, covers
those potential flaws in his argument, and refocuses attention on his bleaker outlook. After his
attention to Zich’s positive interest in electronic communication, Birkerts transitions back to his
more adverse view:
Others might argue that the technologies cited by Zich merely represent a modification of
the “form” of reading, and that reading itself will be unaffected [...] Here I have to hold
my line. The context cannot but condition the process. Screen and book may exhibit the
same string of words, but the assumptions that underlie their significance are entirely
different depending on whether we are staring at a book or a circuit-generated text (231).
Again, Birkerts’s word choice, “hold my line,” invites confrontation and resonates back to the
negative, even as the refutation portion of the counterargument structure serves to divide and
conquer. The positives are beaten back and the reader is left with Birkerts’s bleak outlook
freshest in mind. The focus on adverse results is then doubly reinforced, after the repeated
McKinney 4
counterargument structure, with a numbered list which continues the negative focus through
italics with word usage such as: “erosion,” “flattening,” and “waning,” (Birkerts 231-232).
As the essay continues, Birkerts becomes more forthright in his hostile attitude towards
the future of communication, and he leaves any semblance of partiality well behind by admitting
his distress. Just before the numbered list he says, “I have a great feeling of loss and fear about
what habitations will exist for self and soul in the future. But there is also a quickening, a sense
that important things are on the line,” (231). Birkerts knows that these developments are
important and are not just going to go away, but he fears what these changes to writing,
communication, and information will bring for the future. Birkerts reveals his own emotions in
an appeal to a sympathetic audience, but his appeal may also reach an audience made more
empathetic through the previous wording and structure of the essay. The slanted tone and
negative enhancing structure have provided information to build the groundwork of
understanding in the reader. Positioned after this fearful plea, the numbered listing of “language
erosion,” “flattening of historical perspectives,” and “the waning of the private self” become a
list of fears for a ripened audience to latch onto (Birkerts 231-232). Birkerts’s blatant admission
to fear isn’t just emotional exposition, but rather furthers the negative structuring of the essay.
As Birkerts concludes his essay, he says, “we are already captive in our webs,” (233). He
weaves, or perhaps reweaves, information and speculation going “Into the Electronic
Millennium,” ensnaring his audience in bleak tapestry of negative words, adverse results, and
fears. The structure of the essay guides readers into a position of being able to see, if not agree
with Birkerts’s viewpoint; although, his message is certainly clear. The fate of print
communication is subject to whims of the electronic era. If Birkerts himself had any ambitions
towards impartiality, those too were captured early on.
McKinney 5
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. “Into the Electronic Millennium.” First-Year Writing: Writing in the Disciplines.
7th ed. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. 226-223. Print.