McLuhan's Message

I think I’ll have to sit with McLuhan’s theses for a little bit before I come to any conclusions about what I think. I feel a little overblown by his style of writing actually, especially in “The Galaxy Reconfigured.” I often had to read a sentence twice or three times. Also, I was put off by his use of quotation of respected intellectuals. He often used quotes to prop up and further his argument. I found this annoying for two reasons: first, I felt that he flaunting how well-read he was (yes, well-read enough to deliberately misquote Shakespeare) and second, unless he disagreed with a quote, McLuhan assumed that because it was said by an intellectual that it should be taken without explanation. The only reasons I can think of that McLuhan would apply such an inflammatory style to his writing is that he wishes to inflame his readers; he wishes to get a rise out of them. By provoking us, he drives home his point: its not the content that counts; it’s what delivers it. The messenger is to blame.

However, the media is not always the whole message: “Indeed, McLuhan writes on page 203, “it is only too typical that the “content” of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.” So, the content, too, has a role! McLuhan never specifies the message or role of the content so I can only speculate that its role changes while the role of the medium itself remains the same: “the change of scale or pace or pattern that [the medium] introduces into human affairs” (203). Do McLuhan’s own writings function in the way he describes media—that it encourages individual inquiry while cutting off the means of understanding that very form of media?

No, his media is his message and it says, “Think!” His sometimes frustrating style shakes the reader to think about the content. McLuhan does not use a new form of media; he simply innovates in an old one. He wants the readers to disassemble media, and thus he uses a older form of media instead of putting