5 ms·

Wow, talking about putting the horse behind the carriage. So, people don't have the concentration to read a book anymore. But instead of fixing the cause of th

by DJHenk 7y ago

Wow, talking about putting the horse behind the carriage. So, people don't have the concentration to read a book anymore. But instead of fixing the cause of this, whatever it is, we mangle them through platforms that weren't designed for it and if there is some success, we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. It can be nice and it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. Books have remained the same for centuries. If people are suddenly unable to read them anymore, it is far more likely that it is the people that need "fixing", and not the books.

rolltiide 7y ago
> it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. In full text, in text only form, verbatim Explain the distinction you are making again and why do you feel it is a productive distinction to make?
- silveroriole 7y ago
  The article says there are animations which “bring the story to life”. Normal adult readers don’t need pictures and animations to aid engagement/understanding - people who are more used to watching movies or reading series of tweets/reaction gifs might.
  - mintplant 7y ago
    They're little UI accents and not the main focus.
  - LandR 7y ago
    I'm reading a book right now, as an adult, that has illustrations in it. What harm? It's a little extra fun that the words are wrapped in some lovely illustrations by a well respected illustrator. It's not detracting from the novel in the least.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Social media == bad. Therefore this == bad?
emiliobumachar 7y ago
Did book reading per capita actually decrease? Back then, learning to read at all was nerdy and privileged.
milankragujevic 7y ago
That is quite a negative opinion, and seems to be very elitist ("book-readers club" vs "non-book readers club"). Nobody is getting "fixed", as sharing written text via new methods does not "harm" written books. People who are going to read books will do so, people who won't may read something similar to books, or may not. The books do not "gain" or "loose" anything, but people do gain, as does society. Those who wouldn't read may do so, which is a positive, those who would already do.
masklinn 7y ago
> So, people don't have the concentration to read a book anymore. Or people don't really carry books anymore, whereas they always carry their phone, so reading novels there is convenient, and the experiment specifically designed an experience for the platform. > we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. Of reading novels. > It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. In what way is the full novel text "more like seeing the movie adaptation" exactly? It seems odd that you would care solely about the physical format and apparently not even remotely care about the contents. > Books have remained the same for centuries. Except for all the times people were not reading books e.g. many 19th century classics were initially serialised in newspapers, consumed as bite-sized chapters before being collected into volumes. > If people are suddenly unable to read them anymore, it is far more likely that it is the people that need "fixing", and not the books. Good luck with that. Meanwhile other people care more about the works than the format and are, as the article notes, > happy to meet people where they are
raxxorrax 7y ago
Short stories often were excluded by the medium if they weren't assembled into collections, so I would think of this as a good addition. The general critique about people reading fewer books is probably true. In my case it is just time constrains. Belletristic works are something I only read while travelling (which I do perhaps 1-2 times a year). But yeah, Instagram wouldn't be my first choice, but I never tried it on the other hand.
feintruled 7y ago
I had some of the same snobbery about audiobooks (which one could level the same criticisms at, maybe even more so). But I have tried a few recently, and have to admit I got a lot out of the experience, maybe even more than reading it myself in the case of some of the better narrations. I don't think your comparison to a movie adaption works at all. It is very much like reading the book - you consume the same text. The difference is maybe the 'distracting' animated illustrations, and the tendency to read in very small pieces, rather than settle down to reading chapters at a time. The last point speaks to your concentration comment, though not sure it's definitely a bad thing, certainly better than not reading at all.
- shantly 7y ago
  Audio books are fine but I've heard from teacher friends that a very high percentage of middle-school-aged kids now strongly resist reading without also having the audio version playing. I suspect access to such has stunted their ability to 1) sound out new words, and 2) to pick up tone, cadence et c from text alone. I find this worrying. Last year my then-kindergartener's "reading time" at school turned out largely to be having the school iPad read to her. She got worse at reading for months before we realized what was going on and how much work we'd have to do at home to undo the damage the school was inflicting. If you give them the option plus little supervision of course they'll take the easy way. Ugh.
CathedralBorrow 7y ago
> we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. It can be nice and it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. This really sounds like you just don't like it because it's not how you would like the reading experience to be. Are you open to the idea that someone can have a meaningful reading experience that's wildly different to yours?

by DJHenk 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

> it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. In full text, in text only form, verbatim Explain the distinction you are making again and why do you feel it is a productive distinction to make?

silveroriole 7y ago
The article says there are animations which “bring the story to life”. Normal adult readers don’t need pictures and animations to aid engagement/understanding - people who are more used to watching movies or reading series of tweets/reaction gifs might.
- mintplant 7y ago
  They're little UI accents and not the main focus.
- LandR 7y ago
  I'm reading a book right now, as an adult, that has illustrations in it. What harm? It's a little extra fun that the words are wrapped in some lovely illustrations by a well respected illustrator. It's not detracting from the novel in the least.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Social media == bad. Therefore this == bad?

emiliobumachar 7y ago

Did book reading per capita actually decrease? Back then, learning to read at all was nerdy and privileged.

milankragujevic 7y ago

That is quite a negative opinion, and seems to be very elitist ("book-readers club" vs "non-book readers club"). Nobody is getting "fixed", as sharing written text via new methods does not "harm" written books. People who are going to read books will do so, people who won't may read something similar to books, or may not. The books do not "gain" or "loose" anything, but people do gain, as does society. Those who wouldn't read may do so, which is a positive, those who would already do.

masklinn 7y ago

> So, people don't have the concentration to read a book anymore. Or people don't really carry books anymore, whereas they always carry their phone, so reading novels there is convenient, and the experiment specifically designed an experience for the platform. > we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. Of reading novels. > It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. In what way is the full novel text "more like seeing the movie adaptation" exactly? It seems odd that you would care solely about the physical format and apparently not even remotely care about the contents. > Books have remained the same for centuries. Except for all the times people were not reading books e.g. many 19th century classics were initially serialised in newspapers, consumed as bite-sized chapters before being collected into volumes. > If people are suddenly unable to read them anymore, it is far more likely that it is the people that need "fixing", and not the books. Good luck with that. Meanwhile other people care more about the works than the format and are, as the article notes, > happy to meet people where they are

raxxorrax 7y ago

Short stories often were excluded by the medium if they weren't assembled into collections, so I would think of this as a good addition. The general critique about people reading fewer books is probably true. In my case it is just time constrains. Belletristic works are something I only read while travelling (which I do perhaps 1-2 times a year). But yeah, Instagram wouldn't be my first choice, but I never tried it on the other hand.

feintruled 7y ago

I had some of the same snobbery about audiobooks (which one could level the same criticisms at, maybe even more so). But I have tried a few recently, and have to admit I got a lot out of the experience, maybe even more than reading it myself in the case of some of the better narrations. I don't think your comparison to a movie adaption works at all. It is very much like reading the book - you consume the same text. The difference is maybe the 'distracting' animated illustrations, and the tendency to read in very small pieces, rather than settle down to reading chapters at a time. The last point speaks to your concentration comment, though not sure it's definitely a bad thing, certainly better than not reading at all.

shantly 7y ago
Audio books are fine but I've heard from teacher friends that a very high percentage of middle-school-aged kids now strongly resist reading without also having the audio version playing. I suspect access to such has stunted their ability to 1) sound out new words, and 2) to pick up tone, cadence et c from text alone. I find this worrying. Last year my then-kindergartener's "reading time" at school turned out largely to be having the school iPad read to her. She got worse at reading for months before we realized what was going on and how much work we'd have to do at home to undo the damage the school was inflicting. If you give them the option plus little supervision of course they'll take the easy way. Ugh.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago

> we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. It can be nice and it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book. This really sounds like you just don't like it because it's not how you would like the reading experience to be. Are you open to the idea that someone can have a meaningful reading experience that's wildly different to yours?