I just read this article in the Atlantic about how the Net has changed the way the article’s author thinks. He’s wondering what the larger, societal effects will be. Being The Atlantic, he’s also savvy enough to realize there may be unintended good consequences that can’t be predicted, in addition to the negatives he highlights.
The article gave me pause. Upon reflection, I believe he’s right. Ten years ago, usability expert Jakob Neilson was doing studies that showed people skim online, they don’t read in depth. And it’s pretty clear from anyone who’s spent five minutes in a browser that we jump from topic to topic pretty quickly.
I know that my own writing has changed. I used to love writing longhand in a lined pad, and now can barely form a sentence without having a text editor where I can cut and paste.
And as for reading? My tolerance for reading long non-fiction books went away years ago. I inch my way through them now. So do I absorb complicated new information that requires Thought and Contemplation? Er, not nearly as much. Maybe it’s simply that I’m older and busier, but it’s true that the Net has really habituated me to sound-bite reading.
That’s one big worry for my upcoming Get-it-Done Guy book, in fact. Part of the reason it is organized as many, many small micro-chapters is that I don’t believe anyone’s going to read a 200-page book straight through. And if I want to give readers value, it has to come in a form they can use.
How about you?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Cheryl Smith // Jun 12, 2008 at 10:51 am
I believe you’re right on the money with this one Stever. For whatever reason, we don’t want to read lengthy anythings - posts, books, stories, papers, newsletters - you name it!
As writers, our challenge becomes taking what we know and want to say, condensing it, condensing more - all the while making sure it still communicates everything we want to say. Thanks for the reminder!
2 Candis // Jun 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I love the idea that your book will be written in “micro-chapters” - I think it’s a great idea. I’m like you - can’t really stay focused on a lengthy non-fiction read for very long.
Now, a good suspense novel, well that’s a different story.
The point you make is interesting, and it’s probably true! We’re all so conditioned to the short and instant information we get from the internet, which is also customized, since we decide what and how much of each to read.
3 Liz Kelleher ~ lizkdc // Jun 13, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Kudos to Carr for putting the question, it’s one that is worth asking.
But I find that the problem of distraction or frittering time is not technology-specific.
Long ago, in another galaxy, in an academic career that was making me miserable, I used to read stacks and stacks of books (like a cartoon critter going at a corn cob, somebody said) simply as a means to *feel like* I was doing something valuable and dull the frustration of an environment I did not like.
I found long-format academic writing frustrating partly because it was so isolating, the feedback loop measured in years, which made it easy to spend months pursuing what would be ultimately a blind alley.
For me, reading and writing have become more effective in a networked world where I can more easily connect with a great big web of sources, commenters and fellow readers.
I do still read a lot of books, though less then I did in the past, but the trade-off has been worth it for living in a more connected, more enjoyable, more companionable present.
Blogged a little about my reaction to Carr as well:http://tinyurl.com/5b92ru
4 Carl D // Jun 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Exactly right, Stever. No question this is happening. It’s enlightening to watch how my kids’ behavior is so much different than my own. Email? Pah! If you can’t say it in txt, it’s too long.
I happen to believe that people WILL find your book useful - the question is more how to find it. That’s where your investment in blogs/podcasts/twitter etc. are quite vital.
Leave a Comment