7 ms·

> “My grafted, spasmodic, online style, while appropriate for much of my day’s ordinary reading, had been transferred indiscriminately to all of my reading, ren

by dpark 8y ago

> “My grafted, spasmodic, online style, while appropriate for much of my day’s ordinary reading, had been transferred indiscriminately to all of my reading, rending my former immersion in more difficult texts less and less satisfying,” she writes. Wolf soon tried again, forcing herself to start with 20-minute intervals, and managed to recover her “former reading self.” Translation: I stopped reading novels and then found it difficult to start again. The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. The problem is that when you go long periods without reading novels, it’s harder to pick up a novel and enjoy it. Reading fluff online doesn’t make you stop reading novels, though, any more than watching TV makes you stop reading novels. It’s entirely possible to do both, with the caveat that everyone’s time is limited. But there’s nothing about browsing online that intrinsically makes it hard to read novels.

checkyoursudo 8y ago
Now I went to law school more than 15 years ago, so the web was a little different then than today. However, I went three years without reading a single novel or any other significant piece of non-legal anything, for fun or not, for that whole three years. So it wasn't the web keeping me away from reading. As soon as I was done, I read Les Miserables, then Player of Games by Ian Banks, then few (2-3) other sci fi novels that I don't specifically remember, and then a bunch of random stuff. I loved it all. I will grant that this is possibly because I had been denying myself that pleasure in order to focus on the grueling pursuit of law school, and that I had wanted to be reading novels the whole time. I am not convinced that the problem is only going long periods of time without. I have done that. My wife did the same when she went to law school. Maybe that's part of it, but I would guess that training your brain on fluff for that period of time is not an insignificant part of it.
Taylor_OD 8y ago
This. I consume books endlessly and almost always have... Unless I stop. A few times in my life I've started reading a book and when it didnt hold my interest I stopped picking it up. 3 months to a year later I would come across an interesting book and then it was back to constantly reading. To help avoid this situation I've made it part of my morning routine to read for 15 minutes every morning (keeps the world/story alive in my head) and if I don't pick up a book for 7 days I move on to another book. Using this method I'm at 27 books for the year and I've moved on from 2.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I actually limit my exposure to novels because I find it extremely hard to stop reading once I start. I'll stay up way too late, and sneak reading in throughout the day, basically doing whatever I have to to continue and finish the story. I enjoy this process, as it keeps me immersed, but it's not healthy.
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    I got in trouble in high school for reading the Dragon Reborn novels during class. Mostly band class.
    - Greed 8y ago
      Carai an Ellisande! Tai'shar Manetheren! Tai'shar Malkier!
      - stephengillie 8y ago
        Tai'shar Cualquier!
  - Latty 8y ago
    This has always been the thing for me - I hate reading a novel and not going cover-to-cover. I get so immersed and coming out of it feels like ruining the experience.
  - hodgesrm 8y ago
    Binge reading was serious problem with the Stieg Larsson Millenium novels, starting with 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. I didn't sleep much until I finished them.
    - romwell 8y ago
      I remember that. Nothing else was done while I was reading them. Seriously, that's why I read so few books - it's like jumping on a long-haul express train, when I really need to get off in 30 minutes to do all that I need to do. But nooooooooo. I'm very thankful to authors that have chapters with a small sense of closure, it somewhat alleviates the problem. The last book I read was "To Say Nothing Of The Dog" by Connie Willis - a great sci-fi - and it had this property, along with a brief summary of the chapter preceding it (a summary that somehow was not a spoiler!), in the style of "Three Men In A Boat (to say nothing of the dog)" -- yet another great brook that inspired this one. It really helped me to put it down and go to bed at night, and I wish other authors followed suit.
dieterrams 8y ago
> The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. The problem is that when you go long periods without reading novels, it’s harder to pick up a novel and enjoy it. Reading fluff online doesn’t make you stop reading novels, though, any more than watching TV makes you stop reading novels. It’s entirely possible to do both, with the caveat that everyone’s time is limited. But there’s nothing about browsing online that intrinsically makes it hard to read novels. First, the issue isn't that what's being read is "fluff", but rather that online reading promotes that "grafted, spasmodic" style of attention. Second, you're completely wrong that the media formats we consume don't affect the other media formats we consume.
- dpark 8y ago
  > Second, you're completely wrong that the media formats we consume don't affect the other media formats we consume. Provide some evidence for this claim. People have been decrying the short attention span that “new media” creates for as long as there has been anything that could be described as “new media”.
  - hudibras 8y ago
    >Provide some evidence for this claim. This is exactly what Reader, Come Home, by Maryanne Wolf (i.e., the book being reviewed here) does.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Does it? I don’t have the book, but it sounds from the review that this is a pet theory with no scientific backing.
longerthoughts 8y ago
>The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. The problem is that when you go long periods without reading novels, it’s harder to pick up a novel and enjoy it. Can't it be both? If our brains adapt based on the way we consume information, wouldn't it make sense that both abstinence from reading novels and reading through a drastically different medium would potentially degrade performance in reading novels?
- dpark 8y ago
  Maybe, but many people read tweets and novels, just as many people watch short clips on YouTube but also watch 3-hour films and binge watch entire drama series on Netflix. I don’t see much evidence that consuming fluff significantly impacts our ability to consume material with depth. With the exception that they are competing for time.
  - longerthoughts 8y ago
    It's less about depth vs fluff than sustained focus and engagement vs scattered, rapid micro-doses of information. Yes, many people read both tweets and novels, but they have different demands and the brain adapts. Somebody who exclusively reads tweets could be less adapted to effectively engaging with a novel than somebody who reads both novels and tweets, and both people would be less effective than somebody who exclusively reads novels. That hierarchy would in turn be inverted with respect to effectiveness at consuming rapid, scattered chunks of information. I'm not a neuroscientist, I just don't think it makes sense to say "well that can't be true because not reading novels for a while also makes you worse at reading novels". Identifying an additional cause for a given symptom doesn't disprove the validity of all other causes.
    - dpark 8y ago
      The problem is the utter lack of evidence for the claim. The assertion that reading tweets makes it harder to read novels is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of. You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. But the common thread there is not X, Y, or Z. It’s “I stopped reading books”. The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading makes other types of reading harder doesn’t sound unreasonable but that doesn’t mean it’s actually true. Adaptation to running doesn’t exactly make walking harder.
prostoalex 8y ago
> The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. There are some alternative theories linking deep immersive reading and short sporadic reading to different parts of the brain. Spending significant time online does seem to lead to shorter attention spans. https://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/
hudibras 8y ago
There's something ironic here about how you felt the need to do a "translation" of two perfectly intelligible English sentences...

by dpark 8y ago

checkyoursudo 8y ago

Now I went to law school more than 15 years ago, so the web was a little different then than today. However, I went three years without reading a single novel or any other significant piece of non-legal anything, for fun or not, for that whole three years. So it wasn't the web keeping me away from reading. As soon as I was done, I read Les Miserables, then Player of Games by Ian Banks, then few (2-3) other sci fi novels that I don't specifically remember, and then a bunch of random stuff. I loved it all. I will grant that this is possibly because I had been denying myself that pleasure in order to focus on the grueling pursuit of law school, and that I had wanted to be reading novels the whole time. I am not convinced that the problem is only going long periods of time without. I have done that. My wife did the same when she went to law school. Maybe that's part of it, but I would guess that training your brain on fluff for that period of time is not an insignificant part of it.

Taylor_OD 8y ago

This. I consume books endlessly and almost always have... Unless I stop. A few times in my life I've started reading a book and when it didnt hold my interest I stopped picking it up. 3 months to a year later I would come across an interesting book and then it was back to constantly reading. To help avoid this situation I've made it part of my morning routine to read for 15 minutes every morning (keeps the world/story alive in my head) and if I don't pick up a book for 7 days I move on to another book. Using this method I'm at 27 books for the year and I've moved on from 2.

kbenson 8y ago
I actually limit my exposure to novels because I find it extremely hard to stop reading once I start. I'll stay up way too late, and sneak reading in throughout the day, basically doing whatever I have to to continue and finish the story. I enjoy this process, as it keeps me immersed, but it's not healthy.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  I got in trouble in high school for reading the Dragon Reborn novels during class. Mostly band class.
  - Greed 8y ago
    Carai an Ellisande! Tai'shar Manetheren! Tai'shar Malkier!
    - stephengillie 8y ago
      Tai'shar Cualquier!
- Latty 8y ago
  This has always been the thing for me - I hate reading a novel and not going cover-to-cover. I get so immersed and coming out of it feels like ruining the experience.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  Binge reading was serious problem with the Stieg Larsson Millenium novels, starting with 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. I didn't sleep much until I finished them.
  - romwell 8y ago
    I remember that. Nothing else was done while I was reading them. Seriously, that's why I read so few books - it's like jumping on a long-haul express train, when I really need to get off in 30 minutes to do all that I need to do. But nooooooooo. I'm very thankful to authors that have chapters with a small sense of closure, it somewhat alleviates the problem. The last book I read was "To Say Nothing Of The Dog" by Connie Willis - a great sci-fi - and it had this property, along with a brief summary of the chapter preceding it (a summary that somehow was not a spoiler!), in the style of "Three Men In A Boat (to say nothing of the dog)" -- yet another great brook that inspired this one. It really helped me to put it down and go to bed at night, and I wish other authors followed suit.

dieterrams 8y ago

> The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. The problem is that when you go long periods without reading novels, it’s harder to pick up a novel and enjoy it. Reading fluff online doesn’t make you stop reading novels, though, any more than watching TV makes you stop reading novels. It’s entirely possible to do both, with the caveat that everyone’s time is limited. But there’s nothing about browsing online that intrinsically makes it hard to read novels. First, the issue isn't that what's being read is "fluff", but rather that online reading promotes that "grafted, spasmodic" style of attention. Second, you're completely wrong that the media formats we consume don't affect the other media formats we consume.

dpark 8y ago
> Second, you're completely wrong that the media formats we consume don't affect the other media formats we consume. Provide some evidence for this claim. People have been decrying the short attention span that “new media” creates for as long as there has been anything that could be described as “new media”.
- hudibras 8y ago
  >Provide some evidence for this claim. This is exactly what Reader, Come Home, by Maryanne Wolf (i.e., the book being reviewed here) does.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Does it? I don’t have the book, but it sounds from the review that this is a pet theory with no scientific backing.

longerthoughts 8y ago

>The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. The problem is that when you go long periods without reading novels, it’s harder to pick up a novel and enjoy it. Can't it be both? If our brains adapt based on the way we consume information, wouldn't it make sense that both abstinence from reading novels and reading through a drastically different medium would potentially degrade performance in reading novels?

dpark 8y ago
Maybe, but many people read tweets and novels, just as many people watch short clips on YouTube but also watch 3-hour films and binge watch entire drama series on Netflix. I don’t see much evidence that consuming fluff significantly impacts our ability to consume material with depth. With the exception that they are competing for time.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  It's less about depth vs fluff than sustained focus and engagement vs scattered, rapid micro-doses of information. Yes, many people read both tweets and novels, but they have different demands and the brain adapts. Somebody who exclusively reads tweets could be less adapted to effectively engaging with a novel than somebody who reads both novels and tweets, and both people would be less effective than somebody who exclusively reads novels. That hierarchy would in turn be inverted with respect to effectiveness at consuming rapid, scattered chunks of information. I'm not a neuroscientist, I just don't think it makes sense to say "well that can't be true because not reading novels for a while also makes you worse at reading novels". Identifying an additional cause for a given symptom doesn't disprove the validity of all other causes.
  - dpark 8y ago
    The problem is the utter lack of evidence for the claim. The assertion that reading tweets makes it harder to read novels is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of. You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. But the common thread there is not X, Y, or Z. It’s “I stopped reading books”. The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading makes other types of reading harder doesn’t sound unreasonable but that doesn’t mean it’s actually true. Adaptation to running doesn’t exactly make walking harder.

prostoalex 8y ago

> The problem isn’t the fluff we read online. There are some alternative theories linking deep immersive reading and short sporadic reading to different parts of the brain. Spending significant time online does seem to lead to shorter attention spans. https://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/ https://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/

hudibras 8y ago

There's something ironic here about how you felt the need to do a "translation" of two perfectly intelligible English sentences...