In the essay, "The End of Serendipity" by Ted Gup, several issues are addressed concerning the Internet. The author chooses to separate his essay into the following concerns: the lack of serendipity, the redefining of literacy, the moral consequences of tailoring information, and the narrowing margins of our consciousness. Personally I appreciate Gup's concerns. At the same time, I feel he carries them to extremes.

The first point made in this essay is the apparent lack of serendipity with regard to the Internet. According to Webster's Dictionary, serendipity is "the facility of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for." In Gup's opinion, the "accessibility of the web" is not worth the loss of knowledge one may stumble upon in text. I agree that the information in a book or newspaper is important; however, the web contains the same information. One can access electronic versions of newspapers all across the world using the web. I agree that pointing and clicking takes away the accidental discovery of knowledge one may find skimming a hard text for information, but the option of surfing the web in the same way one would skim a text is available, only faster.

The author's goal is to "write on behalf of random epiphanies and the virtues of accidental discovery before they too, go the way of [his] old Remington manual" (250). The second point Gup makes is the redefining of literacy. He takes the stand that "these innovations are ushering in a world that, at least to [his] tastes, is entirely too purposeful--as devoid of romance as an arranged marriage" (250). I agree that the world of technology is moving very quickly; however, the web is an asset to everyone with limited time to locate information. Links from page to page give people the option of stumbling across other information. It may or may not be as effective as serching through dozens of hardbacks, but it is a start.

"There are moral consequences to being able to tailoring information that reaches us" (251). Gup's final point, the tailoring of information, in his opinion pushes important information that no one wants to deal with into the margins of the information superhighway. He feels that people will not seek out how to help starving people whose stories may appear on the front page of a newspaper, or get involved with a cause that may not be appealing to them. People who use the Internet tend to look at what appeals to them, not what brings guilt for their lack of concern. This point makes sense to me. I agree that people may not seek out ways to get involved, but we must remember that people choose for themselves how to spend their time and their money. I believe that seeing pictures in the paper of small children starving, people senselessly dying, or animals suffering on the streets can help people's hearts to change and encourage them to help in some way. Although these things can be found online, I agree that a newspaper would be more effective for reaching people in their communities to rally involvement for important issues.

In conclusion, I agree as well as disagree with the author. Yes, the web decreases serendipity to a degree, but the web is also very accessible. Yes, there are moral consequences to the web, but they are for individuals to deal with on a personal level. It all boils down to the free will of an individual to choose what sources they want to use.

Gup,Ted. "The End of Serendipity." Cyber Reader. 2nd ed.  Ed. Victor J. Vitanza.  Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999. 146-148.