Earlier in the essay Lanham discusses "looking through" something opposed to "looking at" something. He writes "filter out extraneous signals, and concentrate on the conceptual meaning. Look through rather than at" (136). Lanham relates this experience to a personnel and private feeling one gets when reading an actual book. A feeling that seems to happen more often when the reader can hold and feel the book with their own hands. "We feel we must preserve the unselfconscious transparency if we are to truly lose ourselves in a book"(136). Looking through something seems more personnel and in a way more private than simply looking at something.
This brings us to the "C-B-S Theory." The Clarity-brevity-sincerity theory attempts to describe what happens when words are exchanges between people. This theory treats words like "goods" or "physical stuff" rather than just simply words. This theory of communication is based on the belief that the message must be clear, must be brief, and must be sincere. Lanham declares that if you want to describe this theory then you must "look at in not through it. You must deny it's fundamental premises in order to think about it" (141). When looking "at" the C-B-S theory it makes sense. The basic premise is understood and is expected to be taken at face value. If one were to look "through" the C-B-S theory several problems would be found. "It doesn't fully explain what it purports to explain. It doesn't describe accurately what is happening. As a theory of written expression it substitutes for accurate description only vague moral exhortations, satisfying in the saying, but hard in the doing. And it is an unteachable theory" (141). Like Lanham argues, the theory doesn't really fit in with human nature in general. We want language for entertainment and enjoyment, it shouldn't be treated like "physical stuff" that needs to be handed over quickly.
I think that Lanham (although he comes across as a bit dramatic at times) has a point. "We'll learn about these powers only by exploring them. Allowing them to compete with one another" (155). My sister has a kindle and loves it, I can't work a touchscreen phone and tend to shy away from advances in technology. Is my sister "right" because she reads the Twilight saga on a handheld device whilst I am forced to read The Canterbury Tales for the millionth time? No! No way is necessarily better. I believe that because every person has their own individual preferences theories like C-B-S will never be entirely true.
Lanham, Richard. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. University of Chicago, 2006. 130-156. Print.
