11/1 Response

I must admit that I am a bit agitated with Andie Tucher's chapter in A History of the Book in America, primarily due to the brief section on the country press.  Perhaps my main complaint is as simple as I disagree with the writer's slant that is evident in Tucher's rhetorical choices.  To me, it seems as though Tucher has little appreciation for the expansion of the country press and the purpose that they served.  I thought that this section was really going to highlight the role of the press in localized regions - as our past readings have - especially when Tucher begins with a quote from Daniel Webster, which stresses that knowledge during this time has "triumphed, and is triumphing over distance" (395).  At this point, the chapter seems to be off to a positive start!

That positivity does not last long however, as in the next sentence, Tucher states: "Yet, grand ideas aside, most of the ragamuffin little country papers lived so close to the edge of disaster that mere survival was often their most pressing concern" (395).  Well, yes, it may be a vital point that rural papers had a difficult time surviving; however, the urban vs. rural importance or privileging here is evident in his use of "ragamuffin" and "little" to describe the small, rural press.  I am not arguing his point that survival was difficult for the small, rural press, but it is off-putting to read such obvious preference to the large, urban presses.  This is especially apparent just a few pages over where Tucher refers to the "exemplary Harvard men" who edited New England publications.

Moreover, instead of focusing on the positive aspects of the rural press, of the great strides in the desire to print and distribute information - whatever type it may be - to the public, Tucher chooses to focus on what the printers did wrong and how it did not work.  Using the example of a printer from Kentucky who produced a "skimpy" first issue, Tucher focuses on the printer's ignorance rather than explaining why there might have even been a need to start this publication.  Surely there is more to this story than just a single focus on ignorance!  As a reader, I would appreciate more depth in this section on the country papers, instead of a heavy-handed and overt writer's preference for the larger, more metropolitan areas.  The country papers may have had their difficulties, but in my opinion, this small section just did not do them justice.