Didn't You Get the Memo?

Chapter 5 of Elements of Literacy primarily focuses on literacy in the workplace, what sorts of literary practices would be required in a particular work environment, and how this literacy effects the economy as a whole. It makes use of various films quite effectively to illustrate the evolution of business as we have entered the information age.

Certainly, acknowledging these films, such as Office Space and The Secret of My Success, and the ways in which they represent corporate life and evolution has its merits, considering film is ever a representation of the times, our lives, and our culture, whether intentionally or not. But, I think Lindquist and Seitz misinterpret certain aspects of these films and don't bother to elaborate on others.

For example, they point out that Office Space effectively satirizes the information exchange within the corporate structure by pointing out the folly of memos when compared to natural human error: the fact that Peter has to endure chastising from eight different bosses when he accidentally forgets to put an arbitrary cover sheet on his TPS reports. However, Lindquist and Seitz seem to argue that The Secret of My Success is somehow antithetical in its treatment of satire of corporate structure to Office Space, drawing a contrast to the theme of the film and painting its protagonist as some sort of hero.

Sure, Brantley learns how to circumvent the system and gain success for himself as well as his company, but the methods by which he does so suggest that the film is also a satire that makes an important point on the futility of the corporate system. Lindquist and Seitz point out that Brantley notices a significant problem with the convoluted and largely impersonal memo system that the company has in place, and that by exploiting this system, he is able to resolve the issue to "save the company." Well, isn't the fact that the literacy of the broken memo system caused the problem in the first place a comment on how preposterous the system is? Doesn't the fact that Brantley had to resort to subversive means to get into a position to make a difference suggest that a larger problem with this literacy system, and therefore satirizes it to prove that anyone can succeed if they exploit such problems?

Also, Lindquist and Seitz seem to suggest that Brantley was able to climb the corporate ladder exclusively due to his knowledge of the memo system working as a mail boy, but they gloss over the fact that at least part of his knowledge--his literacy--came from his boss's wife, who he had an affair with.

Also, Deborah Brandt's study in literacy is mentioned in a significant portion of this chapter, and being an important, thorough, and effective literacy scholar, I can understand why. But this is such a significant chunk of the text that I have to wonder why Deborah Brandt didn't just write this chapter herself. True, she gives plenty of vital information, but surely there is another side to this issue? Surely there are other studies that have offered different perspectives on literacy in the workplace? Why are none of them represented here, if nothing else, for the sake of thoroughness? Presenting only one side of an argument is little better than presenting Brandt's study as a whole with no additional dialogue from Lindquist or Seitz.

Though the problem of effective business communication is represented here via several examples of significant issues and satires, no real solution seems to be offered.

However, speaking of literacy promotion during such historical periods as WWII reminded me a bit of my experience during high school. It was normal for an army or navy recruiter to come visit our class about once or twice a year. However, very shortly after September 11, they came to our class on an almost biweekly basis. The recruiters often emphasized the future job opportunities available through their programs, specifically the various college degrees that were sponsored. They offered to pay for a significant portion of a student's college tuition in a wide variety of subjects and degrees, provided they joined the armed forces. And they also made sure to point out that combat was far from the only field in which they were looking to fill the ranks. It was an interesting concept, offering a college education in exchange for service, and in a lot of ways it seemed to promote literacy in a time in which literacy was extremely important.