I have read articles like Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid?” before. I always somehow feel like they do not apply to me, however arrogant that may sound. I like to read, and I find it to be a more engaging and enjoyable activity than many other activities. I can get through multiple chapters of a good book in what feels like minutes, completely unaware of my surroundings, only stopping because I have to go to my next class. What I’m getting at is that I think that there are a fair amount of people who still like to, and do, read.
On the other hand, it most likely is true that less people read today than in times past. I think that a big part of this is the fact that we have more forms of media that are easily accessible to us. People can go to a movie and experience a whole story with pictures and sounds (stories that are often adapted from books) instead of reading, and I don’t think it is at all because they are lazy or can’t get through a book. They probably just find it to be a more fulfilling entertainment experience. Similarly, many people would rather bring their iPods to entertain them on a plane or car ride than a book. Once again, I think this is personal preference, not laziness or inability to read. People have so many other forms of entertainment now that they didn’t have before, and they might just like them more than their old books.
As for the internet, there may be some truth to the hypothesis that search engines like google and the many hyperlinks and advertisements crowding nearly every webpage have somehow shortened our attention spans. But I’ve also read an article that counters Carr’s argument that presents facts about how the internet is doing good things for our brains. For example, take writing a research paper: because I am used to the skimming and clicking around of the internet, I can find the information I need quickly and efficiently for a report. I don’t need to read every article in depth to find out if it has the information I was looking for. I think that’s a good thing. I think that this person, commenting on an analysis of Carr’s argument, puts this idea well:
“I find that I still have no problem throwing myself entirely into a great book, but I have little patience for authors who wander meaninglessly through pages and pages of tripe. I used to be able to read those books, too, but now I just skim that junk. I don’t attribute that to a lack of focus, but rather to an increased ability to recognize when something is textual detritus and filter it out. If nothing else, the internet exposes us to a wide array of written junk – you HAVE to learn to sort it.”
And this is just a thought, but I’ll throw it out there anyways… I think that the people who have grown up with the internet (like me) are able to incorporate it into their lives and use it well. Perhaps it poses more problems for people who already have their brains set up for reading lengthy books and arguments and are suddenly bombarded with the internet and google and tons of links at their fingertips.
But something that I think may be even more dangerous than the internet for young minds (even [well, especially] the kids who have grown up with it) is Sparknotes. Of course I’ve used them, and I’m sure most high schoolers have. They are good ways to wade through particularly dense material or to get an idea of a book’s themes or symbols and be better able to grasp them. The problem arises when people read them in place of books, and I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people say that that’s what they did instead of reading a book assigned for school. I guess this is also a part of personal preference or even peer pressure. To some groups of kids, it’s cool or funny or popular to get ridiculously bad grades on tests or to say ”Psh. Sparknotes!” when asked if you did the reading for the previous night’s homework. I really think sparknotes hurt people’s ability to read more than the internet. It takes the emotional and personal experience out of reading. It takes all of the work an author did, toying with phrases and metaphors, perfecting paragraphs and chapter titles, and boils the story down to its bare skeleton. It isn’t reading the book.
Anyways, another thing that I think when I finish reading articles like Carr’s is “Hey, I just read this entire article. I must be okay.” It’s kind of weird to read a nine page article about how we can’t read, because the fact that I could do it kind of goes against the argument. So to recap, I really think that it’s a completely personal thing. I choose to read because I like it a whole bunch, and others choose not to read (I think) because they would rather spend their time in a different way. It’s not everyone’s goal to have read all the classics or to learn universal truths or something through literature. And I think that is a testament to human individualism and emotion rather than to the perils of technology.
I understand that this is a particularly unpolished, opinionated, ponderous, and lengthy blog post but I enjoyed it and I hope it’s okay.