I recognize general categories of literacy and illiteracy that differ, or really expand upon, the generally accepted definitions. For example, in addition to the generally accepted definition of literacy that really only defines a bare functional literacy that can laboriously decode those funny lil squiggles we call writing, material literacy (which includes a small degree of comprehension of what those decoded squiggles mean), and formal literacy (which is able to place basic meanings within cultural, historical, and disciplinary contexts, as well as make meaningful interpretations of text and relate texts read to a wide array of other texts one has read, then reason from the information thus gained) are also important. Note: Despite the very mild complexity of construction of the preceding sentence, any _materially literate_ person would have no problem parsing it (which means that probably more than 80% of adults in the US today got lost halfway through the first parenthetical comment).
Illiteracy, too, has types. One, which I first saw referred to by Robert Heinlein, is subliteracy–always, in my experience, simply the result of laziness. Subliterates are quite often proud of their poor literacy, and think they are much more literate than they are, which results nowadays in whole ravening packs of “Indie” writers savaging the English language, because they actually do know so very much that just ain’t so, and their vocabulary, grammar, and spelling demonstrate their vast ignorance, because they “don’t need” (and probably couldn’t find anyway) a literate editor or even proofreader.
The worst literacy affliction is one that feeds subliteracy: a-literacy. It is really no use to be able to decode those funny lil squiggles (functional literacy) if one just doesn’t bother to read anyway–or just doesn’t bother to read anything written by someone who isn’t dumber than a bag of hammers. As Twain said, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” In fact, one who can read but does not may well be worse off, IMO.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind fools so very many people so much of the time?
BTW, I’m still striving for a formal literacy that approaches that of some of my Heroes of the Mind, such as my paternal grandfather who had reams of poetry embedded in his memory, or a dear old saint I once knew who memorized the New Testament–yes, the whole thing. I ain’t anywhere near the literacy either of those attained, but it’s remarkably interesting to pursue such a level of literacy.
Examples? Millions of ’em. . . Writers who cannot visualize the action they write are among the worst. (A lack of vision, I have found, is quite often closely linked to other lazy writing behaviors.)
For example, “He spun on his heel. . . ” (and walked away, apparently, having barely avoided falling flat on his face from executing such an awkward maneuver). Why do people write such a stupid phrase? Go ahead and give it a try. Spin on your heel and walk away from [whatever, whomever]. Awkward, isn’t it? Typically, one performs a “spin turn” on the ball of one’s foot, because that ISN’T awkward.
But no, some folks write stuff just because they’ve seen other lame brains write it and think it looks/sounds cool. (Usually, these seem to be “writers” whose basic grasp of English is exceedingly weak–most would write “week” there, I suppose *sigh*)–and whose vocabulary and grammar is stuck on the “overweening* and completely undeserved confidence” point of the Dunning-Kruger Curve.
Oh, and a wee lil FYI for ya: whenever you see a published work of ANY kind in it where the writer includes “alright,” you can pretty much bet the farm that the book will be littered with misused words, execrable grammar, inconsistencies that make mockery of any kind of reason, and more. It really is a pretty good indicator.
*Yes, this is not a widely used word, but any reader here is just not a normal reader, so I have no problem using words that are beyond the ken of the illiterate hoi polloi. *heh*