Reading Is Changing
Anyone who likes books and spends a lot of time on the internet (which is to say, you) should read this (or at least skim it).
Let me know what you think.
LATE UPDATE: I realize the headline is dumb. I'm just asking whether the underlying argument is right--that people who spend a lot of time online find, over time, that they have more difficulty reading long-form texts with the kind of focus they demand. (I know that I have found this to be a problem in the last couple years.)
posted by John Green @ Monday, June 23, 2008
39 Comments
39 Comments:
I don't know if I agree that Google is making us stupid. I don't think it's doing any favors for people who already weren't so bright. For those people just skimming the surface of the vast resources on the internet, jumping from link to link for instant answers and/or entertainment, then the article possibly has a point.
However, for a lot of people, myself included, I don't think that the immersion in "all things Google" is as skewed towards the negative as this article makes it appear. There are always going to be people who embody the fears of this author, but you just have to look a little deeper - I think that the "thinkers" and "readers" are not becoming any less so due to the readily available flow of information at their fingertips, but instead, are doing more and more impressive things. By the tone of the article, I would think the author believes that this kind of internet lifestyle is leading down a destructive or scary path, but you need only look at the Brotherhood 2.0 project and the Nerdfighter phenomenon as a whole, for example, to see that the new internet kind of information gathering is only leading to more and more amazing things. There are astounding "thinkers" out there on the internet, who seem not to have suffered in any way from immersing themselves in the information available to them, who are doing impressive things and building communities of like-minded folks who go on to accomplish even more impressive things. Deep and valuable things, hardly the product of fleeting and distracted attention.
Also, honestly, just because the author can't sit down and read a book anymore without wanting to do something else isn't, to me, an example of his brain changing, but more a new fixation on instant gratification. He's not willing to put the time in for the payoff anymore. Clicking links and searching Google is instant payoff. Reading a book takes time and absorbtion to get to the prize at the end. I hardly think that a lack of self-discipline in a few is cause to be so alarmist.
I didn't have the attention span to read this all the way through, but OMG YES THIS IS SO TRUE.
OK. A little bit later. I took a deep breath to concentrate and make the effort. And boy, was it hard. I'm really losing something here, it seems - I used to be able to read for hours and hours, mostly not hearing what was going on around me. And I can't do that anymore. So yes, this is going on. At least for me it is, sadly.
Though never with any of your books, John Green :-)
(this is marrije at www.eend.nl/dfc who has lost her blogger password, a thing you can't google for, aargh)
I don't think that the internet is "making us stupid", it's just changing the way that we read and take in information.
Just because a person can't sit down and focus enough to read an entire book, like when doing research, doesn't mean that the person's brain function is somehow changing. The person is going to be more inclined to type in "google.com" than search through an entire library because it's more efficient.
This comment has been removed by the author.
While I think the Atlantic piece is a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think it's completely wrong. I do see a shift in what people of all ages are willing to read--and the author isn't the only one I know who has trouble finishing a whole book. My husband is another who has gone from spending evenings reading to spending evenings on the web. Is it the end of society as we know it? That would be an exaggeration. But I do think it is changing society in general, with the usual benefits and problems that come with any change.
I live out in the sticks, and Google et al let me find information I would otherwise need to waste 40+ pounds of carbon to obtain.
But I'm another one for whom Google is never going to replace reading a book through to the end and being enveloped in the world the author creates. And if I don't finish that book, it might just be an indicator of a lack in that book and not me. (Don't worry, it's never yet happened with a John Green title!)
Wow, that was interesting (or at least the paragraphs that I read were). For the most part, when it comes to fiction, I tend to be able to stay in the 'deep reading' zone. Gosh, you know what, even as I write this, I wonder if that is in fact, true. I must admit recently (let's say during the last six months) I find my self stopping mid page with increasing frequency to Google an unknown reference in the text. Although to be fair, I have of late been reading novels that are rather weighty with pop culture references. for the sake of brevity, lets say, as a general rule, I can sustain deep concentration when reading fiction.
Reading for information, however, I'm all over the place. I skim. I follow hyperlinks. I skim some more. As time passes, I end up with an increasing number of web pages open on my computer screen. I look for consistency and points of contrast in what I read (you know that I meant to write, skim). I most defintiely exhibit behaviors found by the University College London in their study on on-line research pattern. I 'bounce' from resource to resource all the time. When it comes to non-fiction reading and/or research, even if you tied me to a chair, I'd be flat out concentrating long enough to finish more than two pages of text.
Isn't that sad?
I'm not convinced that Google is making us stupid, but it does seem to facilitate the changes mentioned in the article.
I disagree google is making us stupid, I believe it's sites like, myspace, friendster, xanga etc...
these sites are useless and i am glad i am not part of it. Now with google, it's great to use, especially when time is a factor.
I love reading and yes, I do wonder after reading some pages but that's cause I have adult ad/hd. Even so I get through the book. And it took me a while but i read through the whole article.
I still prefer physcially holding a book or magazine while I read. There's a certain respect that the weight and heft of a book demands.
I've also noticed a decline in my reading comprehension. I don't know if it's a direct effect of the internet, but I'd guess that it definitely plays a significant role.
I've also found that when reading long articles, books, whatever, my eyes will keep moving through the lines of text, but I'm no longer reading the words; I'm thinking about something completely different. By the time I realize this, I'm like half way down the page.
I think it's a bit ironical that when assigned a research paper (yes, I drastically switched subjects with no transition), teachers no longer require book sources, or any kind of print sources. I remember in junior high, my English teacher (actually she was my Language Arts teacher, but that sounds silly to say) would sign us up for days in the library to look through the books and encyclopedias for research. They don't do that any more. Granted, I haven't been in junior high for about seven or eight years, but still. It's the same thing at my college.
Wait, there was a time during my freshmen year of college, that my English professor assigned a ten page research paper, and we had to use something like five books in our research, and they had to be from at least 2001. Everyone in our class was like, "OMG where the hell am I going to find FIVE books?" And this was coming from students who have an eight floor library a mere five minute walk from their English classroom. It was ridiculous.
But anyway, to get back to the article, I think Carr makes a good argument, but I wish he would've touched upon the subject of books (and my poor workplace that is the library) becoming extinct. It seems like a logical way to go. Or, at least, to me, it does.
I think it's pretty funny that he writes such a lengthy article about how people can't read lengthy articles anymore.
Which I don't believe to be true. I always was a reader of books and I always will be. And there are people who aren't. And there are people who would like to be. I don't think the internet turns a reader into a non-reader or a non-reader into a reader.
The time I spend on the net doesn't take away my reading time as for me, those two are completely different activities. Of course, reading's involved in both, but for me the internet is more of an information supplier and the book is a story and phantasy and beauty supplier.
Also, I question the believe that reading itself is the only wholesome activity. It really, really depends on what you're reading and if you can relate to it and if you can give it meaning and if it makes you think.
The same applies to TV, the internet or playing with Barbies.
To be reading is not equal to thinking and to watch TV or surf the net is not equal to not thinking.
But he has a point when he talks about the internet changing our brains, our way to think. The thing is, our ways to think are constantly changing. But change itself is not a bad thing. As long as we think for ourselves and arrive at our own conclusions, who cares how we got there?
[btw, that's a little off-topic, but: Taylor? So not the hottest thing in organisational theory anymore...]
While I personally have not found that my attention span has been drifting while reading books, I grew up on the internet, and have found that it is harder for me to read older stories, such as Wuthering Heights and Shakespeare. But its also dependent on the author of the books to hook us in. I've noticed a disturbing trend recently, towards shallower books, books about nothing, and its hard to really be hooked by those stories, so it seems like you can't pay attention to them. I've found it easier to read books for long periods of time than read things on the internet for long periods of time.
I think it is hard to separate the cultural influences in general that the internet has had on us from the specific influence on the act of reading. I think our attention spans have shortened, due to the immediacy of all of our communication, not just the internet (cell phones, text messages, video screens at the gas pump..). We are rarely alone with our thoughts, let alone given the time and space for that long, deep quiet that allows us to sink ourselves into a good book - to lose ourselves in text. There are just too many interruptions, and our brains are primed for them.
The internet and the computer have brought textual communication to many more people - and I bet more people do more kinds of reading and writing than people did 20 years ago. People text message each other, they read and write on the internet (blogs, wikipedia, etc.) and many people use email or myspace/facebook accounts and their primary communication with friends and family.
I can still get lost in a book, not realizing how much time has passed, but I have to set time aside to do it - and make sure I won't be interrupted. It is almost like meditation - a conscious act of solitude. I highly recommend it!
Tracy
Its an interesting article, but I don't think I agree with the overall message. I'm glad you posted it, John, because of all the discussion created from it!
To respond to a few prior comments:
C - You posed some great issues that I'd like to address. Even as a librarian, we hate to see students with "print only source" assignments. Its extremely limiting. While there are great print resources, the most current are online. Most libraries don't keep print journals on the shelf after they become available in a reliable database.
Books and libraries aren't doomed for extinction, either. Granted, this is my job I'm talking about, but I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible (if possible :) ). Libraries aren't just a place to store books into eternity - our main duties involve providing services to the public. We teach people how to research, read, write and utilize many new technologies. Our physical spaces will change (for the better, IMO), but we will still be here. I hope that addresses your concern.
Kalafudra - Online searching and book/long reading are separate activities for me, too. I do read some more lengthy things online, but I get just as absorbed as I would with a paper book. People have been blaming (non-medical) attention span issues on new technology for ages - radio, TV, video games, google. Every new tech advance has drawbacks, but usually we manage to adapt and keep the activities we love intact.
I think the article makes a little bit of a stretch in applying the author's experiences to the public as a whole especially when he is only guessing at the cause of his current predicament; as they say, correlation does not equal causation. I am invested in the internet--I work on it and I spend much of my free time on it--but I can still spend five hours reading a book that engages me.
The internet is not really related to reading a book and the two do not effect one another. While they both involve reading they are entirely different activities. The internet is an absorbing of data in much the same way as watching television or actually more like conversing with a friend or playing a game. Reading is more like pretending--akin to watching a movie--you immerse yourself in a world, one not of data but of emotion.
You can really see this when you realize that these two things are not linked to the format they are presented in and that the internet or a book are merely the preferred means of facilitating these activities. Take for example the bathroom reader or fact book. While in book form the experience it provides is that of the internet; a barrage of random data that is amusing but not lasting. The opposite is something I have experienced quite often reading some of my favorite authors. When I read Tyro I almost had to be torn away from the computer because I did not want to stop reading; by Carr's reckoning I should have given up after a few paragraphs.
The internet itself, the network on which things pass over, may be relatively new but the spirit of it, the fundamental activity that we enjoy every day, has been around for a lot longer, the internet just brings it to a global scale.
I pretty much grew up on the internet. I find that I don't read books as much anymore. But when I do, I don't have any trouble concentrating on them. Usually, when I read, it's for at least two or three hours; I don't like stopping before the book's done or in the middle of a section or chapter.
I do agree with him that the internet's changed how people read, and what he said about "pancake people" I find to be extremely true. Instead of intimately knowing about a subject or topic, we just know a little bit about everything, which I find to be a pretty horrible thought.
I don't see the internet taking the place of libraries, but it'll definitely take, and has taken, over many of the duties/roles the library traditionally holds/held.
I read/skimmed the article when it was first published and, yeah, the internet has definitely given me ADD. I doubt it's actually lowered my IQ, but it's created/encouraged a habit of intellectual laziness. There was an article in Poets & Writers last year or so in which a writer related his experience of going a year without the internet. It made me want to try it, but it seems so impossible.
I'm surprised that I actually made it through reading the article at hand. Hennyway, Friedrich Winslow Taylor was strangely absent from my history and economics education. It seems the "assembly-line" style philosophy would be significant enough to learn about.
On another note, what's not mentioned about the internet (or only hinted at vaguely) in the article is the deterioration of culture. There's simply too much information to sort and who gets to decide what art reaches the top? There's now what I'll call the "myspace" or "youtube" band that may only be achieving success for webhits based on trivial things like looks and so on and so forth.
I'm not sure where the cliche comes from (maybe I should Google it?), but not everything is about the end, but the journey to get there.
I have a bit of an abstract written up for a novel about an anarchist group that destroys technology in order to give life meaning again.
Isn't it terrible that the 90's were the peak of human (or at least USA) existence? The internet back then was just like any other medium. Where have all the flowers gone?
That was a bit ranty, but called for, I suppose.
The argument is entirely right. I'll be honest, I couldn't read half the article even though it is insanely interesting to me.
Since sixth grade when I had to use the internet more and more often my concentration and reading abilities have gotten worse. And, really, that is incredibly sad--it was only five years ago.
I don't know if this is addressed in the article (I'll read it! I swear! Sooner or later!), but we need to worry more for the kids who are in elementary school now, living completely in the digital age, who hate reading. To them, reading could become absolutely nothing. It doesn't need to be said how dangerous that could be for society.
I don't think that is true at all... though I did only read the first paragraph. Just kidding. No I read the whole thing. I read all the time, and have no trouble consuming long articles either. However, I like to read, so someone who already doesn't may beg to differ.
brittany
Liz, as a person who has had a computer since birth I can tell you that growing up in the digital age does not make a person hate reading. If anything it is far more precious because of the contrast between literary reading and the conversational reading we do every day.
I'm late to the party, but I can't say for sure what Google is doing to everyone, but I know how I am. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to read a lengthy document on a computer. I always have - I much prefer reading a book or long article in print. Yes, research, finding quotes - even surveying the dictionary is faster online - but to me, nothing will replace holding ink on paper for the long stuff. And, I still enjoy the long stuff.
I have never had patience with long articles, because if I'm reading, it is usually a book. Television, and not the internet, is my major reading distractor. I still manage to get healthy doses of both, though.
I teach middle schoolers, and I will say that I see the internet affecting them. First, the bad way: I basically think that for the most part, kids aren't great influences on each other. This may sound ridiculous, but I think that kids in large, unsupervised groups make each other meaner and more stupid. This isn't to say that kids are bad or stupid--I wouldn't teach them if I didn't love them--but when they are alone, they don't always bring out the best in each other. The internet provides a virtual place for them to hang out and feed off each other. MySpace and its like cause such trouble for teachers and administrators. We're always dealing with cybergossip and cyberbullying. I know many of your readers here are young adults, and I don't mean to insult them. But I ask them to consider this: how much of your time online is spent saying kind, positive things about others?
Now, the good: I think Google teaches kids to think in a totally new way. When kids search for something, they are forced into a sort of meta-cognition. First, they have to ask themselves what they want to know. Then they need to think about what they want specifically to know about what they want to know, and then they need to think of which key words will get them to that information. This efficiency of thought is a great byproduct of the internet.
Kickthecan, I did not mean to imply that all people who have grown up and are growing up in the digital age hate reading. I meant to say that we should focus on those children in elementary school right now who do not like to read. (Not saying that all of them do not enjoy reading, but there are always the few who do not care for reading.) As time goes on, these children could be at a disadvantage regarding language as a whole. The internet takes out the need to use context clues and critical thinking, the skills that are necessary to communicate. Their environments do not require them to use these skills in earnest and that leaves them unable to teach others these skills.
It would be a shame if we pass over these few and think our society can continue to function. The internet will not stop growing any time soon and the seperation from traditional research methods and reading will continue unless we are proactive.
Most of us were already stupid. Teh intranets just make it more apparent.
I think it depends. I'm more willing to sit down and read a book than I am to read an entire article online. I'll also read a magazine article in print rather than online. I find that when I read it online I'll just skim it rather than read the whole thing, if that makes any sense.
It's interesting. There was one sentance in particular that I found intriguing; that the internet is "chipping away" the "capacity for concentration and contemplation". I agree with the former; web articled appeal to short attention spans. It's simple, it's easy, whatever. However, I don't think that it removes contemplation, in fact, I think it's the opposite. The web stimulates contemplation. I mean, just thinking within YouTube or a blog, aren't both an act of response to something that someone heard? And through comments and vid. responses everyone else is able to respond in turn to that, and argue their point of view? The web opens up the ability to contemplate, because it gives you more options, opens your eyes, exposes you to more.
I can see that the web would definitaly have implications on the style of reading and writing. It's really a good and bad thing, though, because as the style changes, writing as become much more widespread. Something like 70% of teen bloggers surveyed said that they thought that writing would impact their lives greatly. It's progress, so, good or bad, it happens.
Okay, I'll preface this with telling you that I only got through 4 paragraphs and gave up.
I can't read long things on the internet. I didn't have regular internet until about 5 years ago, and since then I've spent a LOT of time on it, lots of email, research, blogs, YouTube, etc. I can read longer blogs from friends of mine, but not people I don't know very well. I suspect that's because I don't have as much personal interest.
However, off line (or really, just off-computer) is a different story. I read just as much as I used to and get sucked right into a good book. I have no problem reading for hours and hours and concentrating just fine on it.
So, I could read that article just fine if I printed it off and sat at the couch to read it, but I stopped doing those sorts of things a long time ago to save the trees.
I'll try reading it again sometime. Maybe I can do it in parts :)
I do have trouble reading long articles on line sometimes, but no problem reading books for extended periods of time. Perhaps for me, the medium of the internet has only shaped my expectations of the medium of the internet, and not other media.
I was amused that the article was so long, but desiring to prove the author wrong, I waded through it.
There is deep reading, and then there is critical reading, which is an even more demanding and rewarding experience. This actually requires the sort of horizontal scanning that the internet fosters. If you want to understand Ulysses, you need a dedicated attention span, true. But you also need to scan it to register its structures and repetitions. If you can quickly recognize these, you can pay "deeper" attention to other matters. Also, it's not a bad skill to learn how to duck in and out of a book. Reading Ulysses will be a lot richer if you don't find it hard to shut the book and glance at historical information about Ireland in the period, or at a Ulyssses Annotated, or at Wikipedia to learn about Joyce's life.
Reading vertically and horizontally are two important skills, and there's a benefit to honing both.
I've always had the problem that if what I'm reading doesn't really catch my attention, I will not read it. With school assignments, I almost force myself to read them. Even if it's really difficult for me to start reading, once I get the flow back. I can sit and read it all the way through. So for me it's just the effort of concentrating on that one task. If I'm interrupted, it'll be very difficult for me to continue where I left off.
Thanks for directing us to that fascinating article!
I agree that the mind is extremely adaptable. Faced with prolonged exposure to the internet, the brain adjusts to the demands of constantly shifting gears between email, social networks, video, IM, blogs, etc. This doesn't make deep reading of books impossible, but one may fall a bit out of practice (not to mention the nagging concern that you should be checking your emails 24/7). A runner who switches from the 3200m to the 200m is logically going to see his long distance skills atrophy - but the ability to perform is still there.
The author's analogy to Plato’s Phaedrus would seem to apply equally to the Internet: "He couldn’t foresee the many ways that [the Internet] would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom)." If the author's concerns turn out wrong he can still congratulate himself on being in company with Plato. Nice bonus.
But I do disagree with the Taylor analogy. (Taylor rocked, by the way. What makes common sense now was groundbreaking then. Taylorism is just another one of the many human ideas that have changed the way we think.) Careful organization of data to facilitate research long predates the Internet. Libraries didn't just leave their books lying around in random piles before electronic search arrived. The internet opens up vast stores of information to easy access. Running across some of my high school papers recently (boy, did my writing suck, sorry Mrs. Young!), it reminded me what a pain in the butt it was to do research. Luckily World Book Encyclopedia had references you could lift as your own. Today, Google is to the card catalog what the ipod is to the sony walkman.
So, where was I? Sorry, just got a comment on my latest youtube video and needed to check it. Spam!!! So, the answer to your question is yes. Steady internet use can make it harder for the brain to focus on in-depth tasks like analysis of long-form texts.
Down with long-form texts!
I think the causal argument is spot-on - though I do agree with TJ that it partially depends on the person and what you're looking at on the Net. For anybody that actually got through the whole article (such as myself :D) isn't as prone to "skimming" as somebody else.
There's also the decision between laziness and efficiency. This is pretty tough, since any examples I can think of (and there are many) are pretty ambiguous. It can easily be argued either way.
I especially liked the ending point. When we stop trying to connect and analyze the things we read, when we let the Net feed things into our brain...that's when we become the artificial intelligence. Powerful words.
Anyway, nice find, John!
Maybe I'm not a typical case, because I actually enjoy reading long form books on my computer, but I actually think the internet has made me a better reader in some ways.
For example, I'm currently reading a fairly lengthy "literary" novel (Middlemarch) that I started reading in HTML format online via Project Gutenberg. Then I also bought a physical copy of the book so I can read in bed, on long trips, in waiting rooms, etc. What I discovered is that I can read more, faster, and with more focus when I read on my computer. The screen is backlit and I can increase the text size when my eyes get tired. Also, at my computer I'm sitting upright in a chair in "business" mode, so I'm much less likely to fall asleep than I am reading in bed (which is where I do most of my physical book reading).
Also, if I encounter an unfamiliar word or quote, I can look it up in seconds, whereas with a paper book I would probably just gloss over it and keep reading. And that's not even getting into all the books I never would have read in the first place if it wasn't for the internet.
I came up with a lengthy response to the article and realized I kind of ended up discussing the article more than answering your question. So, here is the rewrite of my response plus a little bit of my first one.
I think what has to be taken into consideration is why we are reading what we are and what we want out of it. I ended up reading a 563 paged book in one day last week because it had the kind of depth and thought-provoking nature that I have always been intrigued by. If there were a text online that could draw out of me what a book is able to, then I would have no problem with reading the whole thing and not just skimming (like the article in question). However, most of the information I search for online is just to answer questions I have usually dealing with references I am curious about (like a song that references an event or a speaker who mentions a document). Most of the articles I read online are most of the time purposefully made short because of people's decreased average attention span and I think that's what makes them so bland and easy to just skim over. In all, my answer would have to be no, my spending time online has not effected my ability to read long-form texts because of the differences in content and what I plan on gaining from reading them.
(Snip-it from my first response...
As for the point thrown in about Socrates' view in the article, I highly have to agree. We depend on being able to look up things on the internet which in turn we care less to remember when we know we can always look it up. I always remember how there were people who existed who remembered the entirety of long works of literature like The Odyssey and how I probably wouldn't be able to do that. Then I ask myself, why? Why shouldn't I be able to?)
I'm not sure if I entirely agree. While I have a problem with my attention span and that could quite possibly be due to a multitude of reasons [i.e. commercials being 15-30 seconds and changing rapidly, television itself, the internet, etc] - I am able to read entire novels in one sitting while knowing and understanding everything I have read.
For an example of what I'm talking about: I have a class every Monday and Wednesday night during summer school at my University called Literature for Adolescents and we have to read a novel for each class. Now, most people don't have a problem finishing their novels for Monday because you have all weekend, but the one for Wednesday seems to be troublesome. However, I can read an entire novel (around 3-400 pages) in around 4 o 5 hours and still go to class and take an exam on the novel and get all points.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one that is capable of such things when it comes to reading - though I do admit that my attention span has grown shorter since I was younger. Who knows, possibly one day my reading capabilities will diminish as well (let's hope not).
I really appreciate the link to the article, John. I definitely agree that my concentration while reading has been lost and while reading the article found myself reminiscing back to the days when I would read a book on the weekend from sun up to sun down and be completely content with my day. Now, it is quite a rare day for me to not involve the internet somehow and that is often frustrating. Then of course, I realized that I had strayed from reading the article and had to force myself back into it.
The article definitely made me think and for the first time in a long time I read it all the way to the end, kind of as a challenge to the topic of the article, haha. So again, thanks.
I've been noticing the same thing.
And I have one solution....gosh darn it john stop making such fun and interesting things on the internet!
I pick up a book and I try to get immersed but I just can't focus.
I keep telling myself it's just because I'm not enjoying the book but I don't think so anymore.
And as soon as I am really into the book, I think to myself, "YES!" and then, of course, I lose it.
Reading is getting so hard these days.
that's really scary.
I have to go read!!!
I did read the entire article, sent it to my two college aged daughters and then to myself at work to share with my colleagues. I am a high school librarian and every school year I see the diminishing ability to sustain thought. And I, also, am more prone to interrupt myself and put down any reading that takes effort. I suppose the only way we'd know if using the internet, and all its embellishments, is a factor, would be to unplug ourselves for at least four months from all electronic input. I don't see that ever happening, do you?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home