Anyway, I hope we can be confident enough to always maintain an eternal amateurism—maybe one day we’ll even achieve an expert amateurism—thanks to humility in the face of the hundred thousands books we’ll never read.
Expert amateurism. I think I love this term.
“For a new author, we want to avoid anything that might cause a reader to put a book down and decide, ‘not for me,’ ” Ms. Sowards says. “When we think a book will appeal to male readers, we want everything about the book to say that—the cover, the copy and, yes, the author’s name.”
An understandable move, given male prejudice against women authors. But a damn shame.
But as I age, my bias is really toward the book that doesn’t make me work as a reader, but as a thinker. In other words, I don’t want to have to slug my way through in order to finish. What I want is to spend the days while I am engaged considering the thing, and then the years after turning it over.
Sometimes, though, the style is the idea.
The article proposes the appropriate response to be to embed ‘digital fluency’ – a tripartite concept constituting critical thinking, net savviness and diversity – at the heart of learning, in order to create a pedagogical framework fit for the information consumption habits of the digital age.
Yes, I am linking to a journal article. And yes, it all sounds like this. And yes, it is right on the money.