11 ms·

Our Bookless Future

103 points by jseliger 7y ago

tasogare 7y ago
The effect of a bookless society can already be seen for centuries: suffice to compare development of societies that use them vs those that don’t. There is a clear correlation between GDP and the number of centuries (millennia in Chinese’s case) written medium has been in use.
- mrr54 7y ago
  Explain China's complete lack of development until very recently, then.
  - freddie_mercury 7y ago
    Google China's "century of humiliation". China was the world's biggest economy until the 1870s. Here's just one chart showing it. This is well known to everyone who has studied economic history. http://urbanlogics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/share-of-gdp-share-1-768x408.jpg http://urbanlogics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/share-of-gd... You could have asked your question with more humility and less abrasion. Just because you don't know about a topic doesn't mean there isn't reams of research about it.
    - dingaling 7y ago
      The questioner asked about sophistication, not size of economy. Chinese technological leadership petered out after the Four Great Inventions ( so around 800AD ) and the economy grew on the back of trade. The Century of Humiliation took place because China was already well behind the technological edge by that time.
      - goatlover 7y ago
        The belief that they already has achieved the best society and thus there was no need to pursue progress. Combine that with a strong emphasis on cultural conservatism and authoritarian rule.
      - blackrock 7y ago
        The peak of ancient China’s sophistication might have been during the late 1200s, during the Song Dynasty. They achieved all kinds of marvelous inventions in this era. And while they didn’t quite achieve the abstract notions of calculus, they did master systems of equations, which is the precursor to linear algebra. And we know today, that linear algebra is the fundamental foundation of computer science. But, they had a fertile valley in the south, and became the breadbasket of Asia. This was probably what Genghis Khan envied, and why the ancient Chinese spent so much sweat and fortune to build their Great Wall fortifications in the north, to defend themselves. But alas, Khan succeeded, and decimated the Chinese, and set them back a few hundred years. It took a hundred years, until the Ming Dynasty were able to overthrow them. But the Chinese were never quite the same again. The Ming did build the fabled fleet ships of Zheng He, and traded with Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Then the Ming faded, and were replaced with the Qing Dynasty. And this dynasty was some combination of the Mongols, so the Mongols eventually ruled China again, by decree. So thus, at this point, they had no need for any more Great Wall fortifications. The enemy was now inside the gates. At this point, the Qing had dominated the local lands, and thus had no further military competition. Until the Europeans and Americans came, and handed their ass to them, and murdered, and drugged, and enslaved them along the way. Thus, their complacency was the downfall of them. Of course, the Qing were also incompetent and did stupid things, like empower a woman as their leader, while the world was undergoing massive shifts in power. And she spent their money on rebuilding the gardens, instead of investing in military armature. But, the Europeans were also to blame for this, because they stole all of China’s money through forced reparations. It’s kinda hard to save money, when the thieves are stealing your gold at forced gunpoint. And the rest is history.
      - smegger001 7y ago
        i have heard arguments that porcelain is to blame. Because their porcelain solved many problems that the west used glass for so they never developed much glass and thus were unable to progress on to making lenses or labware so no glasses, telescopes, or microscopes, also no prisms or high quality mirrors. Without these advances you are unable to study much of biology, chemistry, astronomy, optics and medicine.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
>It won’t be long before all living memory of a time before the personal computer is gone. And there is some evidence that maybe 100 years after that time all living memory of a time with the personal computer will be gone.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Maybe we ought to be printing manuals, documentation, manufacturing methods, etc on Tyvek.
mrr54 7y ago
>In these later letters, Wolf sounds like the kind of alarmist digital enthusiasts often deride. After all, they say, reading is not dying; it’s thriving. Wolf herself quotes a study from the University of California, San Diego, showing that an average user consumes 34 gigabytes of data per day—the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words. How is that the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words? I appreciate people read a lot of text messages, articles, posts, etc. But they don't read 100,000 words worth of those things on average a day by any means. 34 gigabytes of data is also definitely not 100,000 words, more like 5,100,000,000 words or 17,000,000 pages. Is it based on some 'a picture is worth 1,000 words' argument? Reading is not thriving. It's hard to find anyone that actually reads books, even if you count reading on eReaders, even if you count listening to audiobooks! People consume a lot of data because they're watching Netflix, YouTube videos and Instagram (and downloading the same JavaScript over and over again on every website). The whole article is just bizarre. It conflates so many unrelated things and doesn't seem to have any real thesis. People not reading books doesn't really have anything to do with people using phones except for the indisputable fact anyone here will attest to: going back to reading books after not doing so for a long time is really hard. You find your mind wandering, you find it hard to read linearly one line at a time without skipping around, etc. The kind of reading you do of a blog post is totally different from the kind of reading you do of a novel. That people read pamphlets in the 18th century has nothing at all to do with the decline in people reading books today. I literally have students coming into tutorials that cannot write. They cannot write down answers on paper. They struggle to write (to write!) because they've been told they can just type and never have to write. It's absolutely bizarre, but that's what they're told by their school teachers, apparently. They also can't sit still and read something without getting out their phones. Students complain that their lecture notes aren't put online and they have to actually attend lectures and take notes themselves even though it's been proven again and again that handwriting notes in lectures is much better for information retention and synthesis of ideas than typing or god-forbid not taking notes at all. Personally, I'm really unsure whether I would even let kids have access to the internet. I had a lot of great experiences online as a kid (I have very fond memories of RuneScape from ages 9-12), and I learnt computer programming online. At the same time, I think you have to be really careful to limit it. It shouldn't be the primary means of entertainment. Mobile devices are probably the main issue: avoid them and at least you can ration and supervise their access to the internet. It can be a tool for research, homework and learning (and fun and games) without the dangers. The mixed messages ("don't share your personal info online" + "put all your personal info online on Facebook and Instagram") are unhealthy and confusing to kids too, I think.
stevenkkim 7y ago
The following assertion interests me greatly: > She points out how the “physical and temporal thereness of books” provides a tactile support for the reading circuit’s development that e-books do not, while noting e-books nonetheless continue to spread to classrooms and children’s bedrooms. Why would this be the case? Is there a measurable difference between dedicated "paper-like" e-book readers like the Kindle vs. e-books on multi-use digital devices like mobile phones, tablets and computers?
- mrr54 7y ago
  I imagine it could have something to do with the physical fixedness of a book. I can remember the positions of the line breaks in some of my favourite books as a child and it wouldn't surprise me if the physical layout of the words on the page (and how far through the book you are) somehow factored into the way the brain stores the memories of reading the book. With an ebook you have the same little device with exactly the same dimensions for every book (no memorable covers or different formats) and there's no physical indication of how far through the book you are. And you can change the font size.
  - stevenkkim 7y ago
    I think all these points are valid. As someone who spent the first 30 years of my life reading physical books, the transition to e-books has been difficult for a lot of the reasons you mention. I wish the author was more specific on what "reading circuit development" means. The frustrating thing about e-book reading devices is how slow they are. Flipping to the table of contents or flipping around the book just doesn't work. Mobile devices, tablets and computers are faster, but the experience still isn't as good a physical book. And then there are distractions.
  - slowmovintarget 7y ago
    That's a fair assessment. The brain doesn't store information so much as reproduce your experiences while reading during recall. It lets you relive, in part, the lighting, the angle, how heavy the book was, whether your edition had a defect on a particular page, the feel of the paper, the smell... All of that comes in to play. For my last read-through of Children of Dune (roughly a year ago now), I read it on the Kindle app on my phone. I remember the hotel room in Mumbai, the look of the text (white on a black background), the sun going down, and the characters moving through my mind. Would I have developed these recall skills if I hadn't spent my life reading paper books? I'm not so sure.
sq_ 7y ago
This line from the article really caught my attention: > In sum, Wolf says, the paper reading brain has better memory, more imagination, immersion, and patience, and more knowledge than the screen reading brain. I've been torn for years about how to feel about my reading and writing habits. I love reading physical books, especially when I'm trying to develop a deep understanding of some topic, and I have, at times, made concerted efforts to take notes on paper and keep my daily schedules and to-do lists in notebooks. But at the same time, I love reading the articles and other types of content that are surfaced by users here and on other sites. I can't be certain (could just be confirmation bias of some sort), but I personally find that what Wolf said in that line is true. When I read and write on paper, I feel like I have a deeper connection to what's there and am more able to reason about it. Reading and writing on a computer feels more detached, like I'm just consuming the content without understanding or just dumping out ideas without thinking.
- xwdv 7y ago
  That’s mostly because you’ve become conditioned to experience screen reading as mindless content consumption and dumps.
- culturestate 7y ago
  I don't notice much of a difference with reading, but I do feel the same way about writing; digital todo lists or notes just don't work for me. I used to think this was about the act of writing in itself - that doing it by hand forced me to be more conscious of the information - but writing with e.g. an Apple Pencil on an iPad is just as useless as typing. I'd really like to figure this out because I love the idea of searchable notes that are available anywhere, any time, and aren't dependent on a dead tree for their longevity, but I haven't found the solution yet. I have a theory that it might be related to the fundamental experience (friction, texture) of a pen and paper, so I'm considering a reMarkable[1] but I'm wary of obsolescence. 1. https://remarkable.com https://remarkable.com
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    The single-purposeness and simplicity of non-digital tools is important, I think. Paper doesn't have a web browser hovering behind that icon, waiting to be easily clicked at any moment. Our brain knows that infinite oceans of content and stimuli are lurking there.
msla 7y ago
I wonder how books compare to scrolls, or clay tablets.
chewz 7y ago
> Just a few years ago, the Kindle was being blamed for the death of the traditional book. But the latest figures show a dramatic reversal of fortunes, with sales of ebooks plunging. So what’s behind this resurgence? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/how-ebooks-lost-their-shine-kindles-look-clunky-unhip- https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/how-ebooks-los...
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  There's a thriving independent self-published Kindle market which isn't included in the sales of the mainstream publishers. So there is no "dramatic reversal of fortunes."
  - ntsplnkv2 7y ago
    Also ebooks are so freaking expensive when I can get used copies for pennies on the dollar.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 7y ago
I miss my Palm TX. It managed to be so poor at almost everything it tried to do that uninterrupted reading was the only thing it was really good for. A pocket device without notifications. Can you even still imagine? I barely can, and it's only been eight years.
- moonka 7y ago
  I like my kindle for so many reasons, especially the screen which doesn't strain my eyes. But this is by far the biggest benefit over reading on my phone or a tablet.
  - ajmurmann 7y ago
    I'm in the same boat. I wonder how soon e-ink readers will get great response times and then share the same problem as modern tablets compared to the old palm.
burlesona 7y ago
A lot of comments are debating the important of physical reading versus screen reading. I think that’s actually missing the point. > “Behind our screens, at work and at home, we have sutured the temporal segments of our days so as to switch our attention from one task or one source of stimulation to another. We cannot but be changed.” This part rings true for me. Last summer I read Cal Newport’s “Deep Work” and then “Digital Minimalism,” in which he gets very into this topic of hypermedia and distracted living. It greatly influenced my thinking about how I use my time, and made me more conscious of the need to focus and actually be present with one activity at a time. This has greatly increased my productivity and lowered my stress level, so I highly recommend it. Newport argues that a lot of what is “wrong” with today’s computers (in every form factor) is the very thing that makes them so useful: they can do so many things. So unlike a paper book, which is really only for reading, a screen is for displaying all kinds of things, and if we are reading on a screen with notifications turned on then we’re probably reading distracted which means we aren’t reading well. I read almost exclusively on my iPad or phone. I find it quite comfortable to sit on the couch and read from either device, but I prefer the iPad (mini). When I occasionally still read a paper book I find the experience is really no better or worse than reading on the iPad, except that the iPad has hundreds of books stored in the space and weight of a single magazine. However, I do think one reason the experience is qualitatively equivalent it is I don’t do a whole lot else on my iPad, so I don’t find it to be a distracting device. I associate it with reading. Another relevant book on this topic, “Moonwalking with Einstein,” is all about memory. That book essentially makes the case that (educated) people in the pre-internet era had to hold a lot of material in their heads, because you couldn’t google stuff, and so everyone practiced using their memory more, committed more “important,” things to memory, and generally did a better job retaining things they learned. All of these are interesting, complex side effects of the internet and the ever more ubiquitous computer, and I think there is a lot for us to think about here. On a personal level, we have some opportunity and perhaps obligation to ensure our lives are enriched by these technologies and push back on the negatives that come with them. But just FWIW, I don’t think trying to switch back to only reading on paper is, by itself, the answer :)
- stevenkkim 7y ago
  I agree with your points about distraction, and I think "Deep Work" is a critically important book. That said, it's easier said than done. I only have one iPad and I do use it for many things including work, and it is shared with family members. That makes it full of distractions. I have thought about getting a second iPad dedicated to reading, but since you can't uninstall Safari, I feel I'm going to end up getting distracted by the Internet. I'm not confident I have the self-discipline to never go on the Internet when it's just a tap away. I do think having an iPad-like device with no functions except a book reader would be an interesting product.
ggm 7y ago
Yet for more time stories were essentially oral and the oral tradition of being read to while working, and of reading aloud to one another kept knowledge alive for many people. Oral story telling and reading aloud presumes high literacy when a shared activity
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
This is really missing the point, IMO. The difference between paper print vs digital "print" is not the issue. The problem is more that TV, movies, social media and YT have created a post-literate culture where the primary model of communication is visual and emotional, not textual and abstracted. That culture is extroverted rather than introverted, geared towards triggering simplistic emotional responses rather than exploring complex arguments with nuance, and actively hostile to abstraction and focused deep insight. This mode has always existed, but long-form writing used to offer a potential refuge from it. Without a strong written culture that refuge ceases to exist.
- deltat519 7y ago
  Yes, I agree. These days I find it harder and harder to consume long-form content. I have to consciously tell my self "Hey, you're going to finish this paragraph," which is such a depressing thought to have. The web has turned my attention span to mush...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > The problem is more that TV, movies, social media and YT have created a post-literate culture where the primary model of communication is visual and emotional, not textual and abstracted. Simply not true. There is more writing in the last year ( digital and print ) than there was in all human history prior the 2019. Each movie now creates countless textual/abstract comments, posts, essays, analysis, etc. > That culture is extroverted rather than introverted, geared towards triggering simplistic emotional responses rather than exploring complex arguments with nuance, and actively hostile to abstraction and focused deep insight. I have to disagree. There certainly is more overall fluff, but there is also more substance. > Without a strong written culture that refuge ceases to exist. Except that there have been more textual and abstracted content created in the last year. More people are literate and writing than ever before.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
juskrey 7y ago
The author got pretty much everything in reverse. Books are Lindy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
LockAndLol 7y ago
This article is the epitome of "back in the day, everything was better". There are no links to back up claims or credentials, and lots of relative facts without context. Paraphrasing "rich kids are more literate than poor kids despite both having a lot of screentime" doesn't prove anything about books and literacy. This is a pure opinion piece with cherry picked facts.
- Roccan 7y ago
  "The Claremont Review of Books is the proof that conservatism is a living and civilising force in American intellectual life, and a powerful challenge to the dominance of the academic left." Oh okay.
- dorchadas 7y ago
  This is really a book review; if you want all the figures and facts, read the book it's reviewing and discussing. Heck, they even tell you they won't be repeating it all there!
romwell 7y ago
Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall; and at that, less than 13% of women were literate[1]. The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
- AQuantized 7y ago
  Famines and disease were also much more common prior to the late 20th century. If our progress regressed it would still be cause for concern, even if the status quo hasn't lasted so long.
  - romwell 7y ago
    My point was that great works don't need everyone to be a reader to exist. If we go back to 20% literacy, we still have to likes of Tolstoy. Arguably famine and disease are bad for those who experience them. Replacing reading books with blogs, games, and video? Not quite so clear. I argue that nothing is lost at all. The bookworms (to which, I hope, I belong) shouldn't be said if 90% don't participate in their favorite hobby.
- jhbadger 7y ago
  Russia was literally still a medieval feudal society in much of the 19th century, so not really representative of civilization at the time. 19th century Britain was home to the "penny dreadful" (cheap books often with a horror or romance angle designed to attract the working class reader) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful
  - romwell 7y ago
    My point is that literature will be just fine without the participation of the 90%. Penny Dreadful existed because Netflix wasn't there. So it will be gone - again, is this a huge loss to the civilization? I don't think there's a sadness that people aren't reading more literature of the Penny Dreadful kind. And as I said, it's not a slippery slope: you don't need the 90% for great literature to exist. Most people will read fewer books. And it's fine.
estrela 7y ago
Personally, I too find a future without books depressing. I do not have any scientific data to back me up on "physical books being better than digital ones", it's simply my personal preference. As someone that spends all day on the computer, I cherish the moments I spend doing something like reading a book, or running, or cooking. Something that feels a little more connected with reality.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> his copy survives crisp and clean to this day, with only the first and last pages cut. Like TAOCP, then, eh?
habosa 7y ago
I strongly agree with this quote from the article: "What bibliophiles really fear isn’t the disappearance of books but the elimination of the time and space needed to enjoy them." I absolutely love reading books but it takes a really conscious effort to carve out time and space in the day to to it. I need quiet and I need my other interruptions to pause. I own a ton of paper books but I've recently switched to Kindle. I find that having a small and self-illuminating reading device makes me way more able to take advantage of reading time when I find it.
blueridge 7y ago
Sunday morning follow-up reading: Reading in the Age of Constant Distraction https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/02/08/reading-in-the-age-of-constant-distraction/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/02/08/reading-in-th... Analog Anchors for the Online Adrift https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/analog-anchors-for-the-online-adrift https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/analog-anchors-f...
RickJWagner 7y ago
Timely article for me. I'm getting ready to move, and have been giving books to Goodwill and throwing some away. (I doubt even Goodwill have takers for Access 2 or VB 3 books.) I really treasure books, but I'm not finding not so much as I did in the past.
jvandonsel 7y ago
tl;dr

103 points by jseliger 7y ago

The effect of a bookless society can already be seen for centuries: suffice to compare development of societies that use them vs those that don’t. There is a clear correlation between GDP and the number of centuries (millennia in Chinese’s case) written medium has been in use.

mrr54 7y ago
Explain China's complete lack of development until very recently, then.
- freddie_mercury 7y ago
  Google China's "century of humiliation". China was the world's biggest economy until the 1870s. Here's just one chart showing it. This is well known to everyone who has studied economic history. http://urbanlogics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/share-of-gdp-share-1-768x408.jpg http://urbanlogics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/share-of-gd... You could have asked your question with more humility and less abrasion. Just because you don't know about a topic doesn't mean there isn't reams of research about it.
  - dingaling 7y ago
    The questioner asked about sophistication, not size of economy. Chinese technological leadership petered out after the Four Great Inventions ( so around 800AD ) and the economy grew on the back of trade. The Century of Humiliation took place because China was already well behind the technological edge by that time.
    - goatlover 7y ago
      The belief that they already has achieved the best society and thus there was no need to pursue progress. Combine that with a strong emphasis on cultural conservatism and authoritarian rule.
    - blackrock 7y ago
      The peak of ancient China’s sophistication might have been during the late 1200s, during the Song Dynasty. They achieved all kinds of marvelous inventions in this era. And while they didn’t quite achieve the abstract notions of calculus, they did master systems of equations, which is the precursor to linear algebra. And we know today, that linear algebra is the fundamental foundation of computer science. But, they had a fertile valley in the south, and became the breadbasket of Asia. This was probably what Genghis Khan envied, and why the ancient Chinese spent so much sweat and fortune to build their Great Wall fortifications in the north, to defend themselves. But alas, Khan succeeded, and decimated the Chinese, and set them back a few hundred years. It took a hundred years, until the Ming Dynasty were able to overthrow them. But the Chinese were never quite the same again. The Ming did build the fabled fleet ships of Zheng He, and traded with Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Then the Ming faded, and were replaced with the Qing Dynasty. And this dynasty was some combination of the Mongols, so the Mongols eventually ruled China again, by decree. So thus, at this point, they had no need for any more Great Wall fortifications. The enemy was now inside the gates. At this point, the Qing had dominated the local lands, and thus had no further military competition. Until the Europeans and Americans came, and handed their ass to them, and murdered, and drugged, and enslaved them along the way. Thus, their complacency was the downfall of them. Of course, the Qing were also incompetent and did stupid things, like empower a woman as their leader, while the world was undergoing massive shifts in power. And she spent their money on rebuilding the gardens, instead of investing in military armature. But, the Europeans were also to blame for this, because they stole all of China’s money through forced reparations. It’s kinda hard to save money, when the thieves are stealing your gold at forced gunpoint. And the rest is history.
    - smegger001 7y ago
      i have heard arguments that porcelain is to blame. Because their porcelain solved many problems that the west used glass for so they never developed much glass and thus were unable to progress on to making lenses or labware so no glasses, telescopes, or microscopes, also no prisms or high quality mirrors. Without these advances you are unable to study much of biology, chemistry, astronomy, optics and medicine.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

>It won’t be long before all living memory of a time before the personal computer is gone. And there is some evidence that maybe 100 years after that time all living memory of a time with the personal computer will be gone.

mirimir 7y ago
Maybe we ought to be printing manuals, documentation, manufacturing methods, etc on Tyvek.

mrr54 7y ago

>In these later letters, Wolf sounds like the kind of alarmist digital enthusiasts often deride. After all, they say, reading is not dying; it’s thriving. Wolf herself quotes a study from the University of California, San Diego, showing that an average user consumes 34 gigabytes of data per day—the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words. How is that the equivalent of nearly 100,000 words? I appreciate people read a lot of text messages, articles, posts, etc. But they don't read 100,000 words worth of those things on average a day by any means. 34 gigabytes of data is also definitely not 100,000 words, more like 5,100,000,000 words or 17,000,000 pages. Is it based on some 'a picture is worth 1,000 words' argument? Reading is not thriving. It's hard to find anyone that actually reads books, even if you count reading on eReaders, even if you count listening to audiobooks! People consume a lot of data because they're watching Netflix, YouTube videos and Instagram (and downloading the same JavaScript over and over again on every website). The whole article is just bizarre. It conflates so many unrelated things and doesn't seem to have any real thesis. People not reading books doesn't really have anything to do with people using phones except for the indisputable fact anyone here will attest to: going back to reading books after not doing so for a long time is really hard. You find your mind wandering, you find it hard to read linearly one line at a time without skipping around, etc. The kind of reading you do of a blog post is totally different from the kind of reading you do of a novel. That people read pamphlets in the 18th century has nothing at all to do with the decline in people reading books today. I literally have students coming into tutorials that cannot write. They cannot write down answers on paper. They struggle to write (to write!) because they've been told they can just type and never have to write. It's absolutely bizarre, but that's what they're told by their school teachers, apparently. They also can't sit still and read something without getting out their phones. Students complain that their lecture notes aren't put online and they have to actually attend lectures and take notes themselves even though it's been proven again and again that handwriting notes in lectures is much better for information retention and synthesis of ideas than typing or god-forbid not taking notes at all. Personally, I'm really unsure whether I would even let kids have access to the internet. I had a lot of great experiences online as a kid (I have very fond memories of RuneScape from ages 9-12), and I learnt computer programming online. At the same time, I think you have to be really careful to limit it. It shouldn't be the primary means of entertainment. Mobile devices are probably the main issue: avoid them and at least you can ration and supervise their access to the internet. It can be a tool for research, homework and learning (and fun and games) without the dangers. The mixed messages ("don't share your personal info online" + "put all your personal info online on Facebook and Instagram") are unhealthy and confusing to kids too, I think.

stevenkkim 7y ago

The following assertion interests me greatly: > She points out how the “physical and temporal thereness of books” provides a tactile support for the reading circuit’s development that e-books do not, while noting e-books nonetheless continue to spread to classrooms and children’s bedrooms. Why would this be the case? Is there a measurable difference between dedicated "paper-like" e-book readers like the Kindle vs. e-books on multi-use digital devices like mobile phones, tablets and computers?

mrr54 7y ago
I imagine it could have something to do with the physical fixedness of a book. I can remember the positions of the line breaks in some of my favourite books as a child and it wouldn't surprise me if the physical layout of the words on the page (and how far through the book you are) somehow factored into the way the brain stores the memories of reading the book. With an ebook you have the same little device with exactly the same dimensions for every book (no memorable covers or different formats) and there's no physical indication of how far through the book you are. And you can change the font size.
- stevenkkim 7y ago
  I think all these points are valid. As someone who spent the first 30 years of my life reading physical books, the transition to e-books has been difficult for a lot of the reasons you mention. I wish the author was more specific on what "reading circuit development" means. The frustrating thing about e-book reading devices is how slow they are. Flipping to the table of contents or flipping around the book just doesn't work. Mobile devices, tablets and computers are faster, but the experience still isn't as good a physical book. And then there are distractions.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  That's a fair assessment. The brain doesn't store information so much as reproduce your experiences while reading during recall. It lets you relive, in part, the lighting, the angle, how heavy the book was, whether your edition had a defect on a particular page, the feel of the paper, the smell... All of that comes in to play. For my last read-through of Children of Dune (roughly a year ago now), I read it on the Kindle app on my phone. I remember the hotel room in Mumbai, the look of the text (white on a black background), the sun going down, and the characters moving through my mind. Would I have developed these recall skills if I hadn't spent my life reading paper books? I'm not so sure.

sq_ 7y ago

This line from the article really caught my attention: > In sum, Wolf says, the paper reading brain has better memory, more imagination, immersion, and patience, and more knowledge than the screen reading brain. I've been torn for years about how to feel about my reading and writing habits. I love reading physical books, especially when I'm trying to develop a deep understanding of some topic, and I have, at times, made concerted efforts to take notes on paper and keep my daily schedules and to-do lists in notebooks. But at the same time, I love reading the articles and other types of content that are surfaced by users here and on other sites. I can't be certain (could just be confirmation bias of some sort), but I personally find that what Wolf said in that line is true. When I read and write on paper, I feel like I have a deeper connection to what's there and am more able to reason about it. Reading and writing on a computer feels more detached, like I'm just consuming the content without understanding or just dumping out ideas without thinking.

xwdv 7y ago
That’s mostly because you’ve become conditioned to experience screen reading as mindless content consumption and dumps.
culturestate 7y ago
I don't notice much of a difference with reading, but I do feel the same way about writing; digital todo lists or notes just don't work for me. I used to think this was about the act of writing in itself - that doing it by hand forced me to be more conscious of the information - but writing with e.g. an Apple Pencil on an iPad is just as useless as typing. I'd really like to figure this out because I love the idea of searchable notes that are available anywhere, any time, and aren't dependent on a dead tree for their longevity, but I haven't found the solution yet. I have a theory that it might be related to the fundamental experience (friction, texture) of a pen and paper, so I'm considering a reMarkable[1] but I'm wary of obsolescence. 1. https://remarkable.com https://remarkable.com
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  The single-purposeness and simplicity of non-digital tools is important, I think. Paper doesn't have a web browser hovering behind that icon, waiting to be easily clicked at any moment. Our brain knows that infinite oceans of content and stimuli are lurking there.

msla 7y ago

I wonder how books compare to scrolls, or clay tablets.

chewz 7y ago

> Just a few years ago, the Kindle was being blamed for the death of the traditional book. But the latest figures show a dramatic reversal of fortunes, with sales of ebooks plunging. So what’s behind this resurgence? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/how-ebooks-lost-their-shine-kindles-look-clunky-unhip- https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/27/how-ebooks-los...

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
There's a thriving independent self-published Kindle market which isn't included in the sales of the mainstream publishers. So there is no "dramatic reversal of fortunes."
- ntsplnkv2 7y ago
  Also ebooks are so freaking expensive when I can get used copies for pennies on the dollar.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwanem 7y ago

I miss my Palm TX. It managed to be so poor at almost everything it tried to do that uninterrupted reading was the only thing it was really good for. A pocket device without notifications. Can you even still imagine? I barely can, and it's only been eight years.

moonka 7y ago
I like my kindle for so many reasons, especially the screen which doesn't strain my eyes. But this is by far the biggest benefit over reading on my phone or a tablet.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I wonder how soon e-ink readers will get great response times and then share the same problem as modern tablets compared to the old palm.

burlesona 7y ago

A lot of comments are debating the important of physical reading versus screen reading. I think that’s actually missing the point. > “Behind our screens, at work and at home, we have sutured the temporal segments of our days so as to switch our attention from one task or one source of stimulation to another. We cannot but be changed.” This part rings true for me. Last summer I read Cal Newport’s “Deep Work” and then “Digital Minimalism,” in which he gets very into this topic of hypermedia and distracted living. It greatly influenced my thinking about how I use my time, and made me more conscious of the need to focus and actually be present with one activity at a time. This has greatly increased my productivity and lowered my stress level, so I highly recommend it. Newport argues that a lot of what is “wrong” with today’s computers (in every form factor) is the very thing that makes them so useful: they can do so many things. So unlike a paper book, which is really only for reading, a screen is for displaying all kinds of things, and if we are reading on a screen with notifications turned on then we’re probably reading distracted which means we aren’t reading well. I read almost exclusively on my iPad or phone. I find it quite comfortable to sit on the couch and read from either device, but I prefer the iPad (mini). When I occasionally still read a paper book I find the experience is really no better or worse than reading on the iPad, except that the iPad has hundreds of books stored in the space and weight of a single magazine. However, I do think one reason the experience is qualitatively equivalent it is I don’t do a whole lot else on my iPad, so I don’t find it to be a distracting device. I associate it with reading. Another relevant book on this topic, “Moonwalking with Einstein,” is all about memory. That book essentially makes the case that (educated) people in the pre-internet era had to hold a lot of material in their heads, because you couldn’t google stuff, and so everyone practiced using their memory more, committed more “important,” things to memory, and generally did a better job retaining things they learned. All of these are interesting, complex side effects of the internet and the ever more ubiquitous computer, and I think there is a lot for us to think about here. On a personal level, we have some opportunity and perhaps obligation to ensure our lives are enriched by these technologies and push back on the negatives that come with them. But just FWIW, I don’t think trying to switch back to only reading on paper is, by itself, the answer :)

stevenkkim 7y ago
I agree with your points about distraction, and I think "Deep Work" is a critically important book. That said, it's easier said than done. I only have one iPad and I do use it for many things including work, and it is shared with family members. That makes it full of distractions. I have thought about getting a second iPad dedicated to reading, but since you can't uninstall Safari, I feel I'm going to end up getting distracted by the Internet. I'm not confident I have the self-discipline to never go on the Internet when it's just a tap away. I do think having an iPad-like device with no functions except a book reader would be an interesting product.

ggm 7y ago

Yet for more time stories were essentially oral and the oral tradition of being read to while working, and of reading aloud to one another kept knowledge alive for many people. Oral story telling and reading aloud presumes high literacy when a shared activity

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

This is really missing the point, IMO. The difference between paper print vs digital "print" is not the issue. The problem is more that TV, movies, social media and YT have created a post-literate culture where the primary model of communication is visual and emotional, not textual and abstracted. That culture is extroverted rather than introverted, geared towards triggering simplistic emotional responses rather than exploring complex arguments with nuance, and actively hostile to abstraction and focused deep insight. This mode has always existed, but long-form writing used to offer a potential refuge from it. Without a strong written culture that refuge ceases to exist.

deltat519 7y ago
Yes, I agree. These days I find it harder and harder to consume long-form content. I have to consciously tell my self "Hey, you're going to finish this paragraph," which is such a depressing thought to have. The web has turned my attention span to mush...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> The problem is more that TV, movies, social media and YT have created a post-literate culture where the primary model of communication is visual and emotional, not textual and abstracted. Simply not true. There is more writing in the last year ( digital and print ) than there was in all human history prior the 2019. Each movie now creates countless textual/abstract comments, posts, essays, analysis, etc. > That culture is extroverted rather than introverted, geared towards triggering simplistic emotional responses rather than exploring complex arguments with nuance, and actively hostile to abstraction and focused deep insight. I have to disagree. There certainly is more overall fluff, but there is also more substance. > Without a strong written culture that refuge ceases to exist. Except that there have been more textual and abstracted content created in the last year. More people are literate and writing than ever before.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

juskrey 7y ago

The author got pretty much everything in reverse. Books are Lindy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

LockAndLol 7y ago

This article is the epitome of "back in the day, everything was better". There are no links to back up claims or credentials, and lots of relative facts without context. Paraphrasing "rich kids are more literate than poor kids despite both having a lot of screentime" doesn't prove anything about books and literacy. This is a pure opinion piece with cherry picked facts.

Roccan 7y ago
"The Claremont Review of Books is the proof that conservatism is a living and civilising force in American intellectual life, and a powerful challenge to the dominance of the academic left." Oh okay.
dorchadas 7y ago
This is really a book review; if you want all the figures and facts, read the book it's reviewing and discussing. Heck, they even tell you they won't be repeating it all there!

romwell 7y ago

Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall; and at that, less than 13% of women were literate[1]. The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

AQuantized 7y ago
Famines and disease were also much more common prior to the late 20th century. If our progress regressed it would still be cause for concern, even if the status quo hasn't lasted so long.
- romwell 7y ago
  My point was that great works don't need everyone to be a reader to exist. If we go back to 20% literacy, we still have to likes of Tolstoy. Arguably famine and disease are bad for those who experience them. Replacing reading books with blogs, games, and video? Not quite so clear. I argue that nothing is lost at all. The bookworms (to which, I hope, I belong) shouldn't be said if 90% don't participate in their favorite hobby.
jhbadger 7y ago
Russia was literally still a medieval feudal society in much of the 19th century, so not really representative of civilization at the time. 19th century Britain was home to the "penny dreadful" (cheap books often with a horror or romance angle designed to attract the working class reader) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful
- romwell 7y ago
  My point is that literature will be just fine without the participation of the 90%. Penny Dreadful existed because Netflix wasn't there. So it will be gone - again, is this a huge loss to the civilization? I don't think there's a sadness that people aren't reading more literature of the Penny Dreadful kind. And as I said, it's not a slippery slope: you don't need the 90% for great literature to exist. Most people will read fewer books. And it's fine.

estrela 7y ago

Personally, I too find a future without books depressing. I do not have any scientific data to back me up on "physical books being better than digital ones", it's simply my personal preference. As someone that spends all day on the computer, I cherish the moments I spend doing something like reading a book, or running, or cooking. Something that feels a little more connected with reality.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> his copy survives crisp and clean to this day, with only the first and last pages cut. Like TAOCP, then, eh?

habosa 7y ago

I strongly agree with this quote from the article: "What bibliophiles really fear isn’t the disappearance of books but the elimination of the time and space needed to enjoy them." I absolutely love reading books but it takes a really conscious effort to carve out time and space in the day to to it. I need quiet and I need my other interruptions to pause. I own a ton of paper books but I've recently switched to Kindle. I find that having a small and self-illuminating reading device makes me way more able to take advantage of reading time when I find it.

blueridge 7y ago

Sunday morning follow-up reading: Reading in the Age of Constant Distraction https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/02/08/reading-in-the-age-of-constant-distraction/ https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/02/08/reading-in-th... Analog Anchors for the Online Adrift https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/analog-anchors-for-the-online-adrift https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/analog-anchors-f...

RickJWagner 7y ago

Timely article for me. I'm getting ready to move, and have been giving books to Goodwill and throwing some away. (I doubt even Goodwill have takers for Access 2 or VB 3 books.) I really treasure books, but I'm not finding not so much as I did in the past.

jvandonsel 7y ago

tl;dr