Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reading Ourselves to Death

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#61

Post by tpoacher »

PKop wrote: post #17

Author talks of text as abstraction compared to "edited" version of reality of visual media. But videos, movies, TV shows are also abstractions, possibly worse in that they more easily trick our subconscious into perceiving them as more real than words on a page while still being constructions of a "reality" based on the creator's point of view. So people think they have an understanding of the world based on fiction…

Indeed. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across the"Argument by webcomic" fallacy: the notion that somehow one's argument is unshakeable compared to a simple declaration of it, because it's been presented as a webcomic interaction or as an infographic.

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#62

Post by tpoacher »

mbg721 wrote: post #36
wizofaus wrote: post #14

I've regretted hours spent watching TV, playing computer games, trying to figure out how to complete a task with no information available, being stuck waiting somewhere with nothing to do, but I can't think of a case I've regretted time spent reading. There may be people in the world whose lives would be improved by reading less, but I'm guessing a vanishingly small number.

I have noticed that when I spend a lot of time reading dystopian fiction, the sense of despair from that dystopia creeps into how I react to real-life. Not all fiction seems to work like that for me, but that style in particular leaves me looking up and going "Whoa," as I readjust to reality. So I do get where the author is coming from here; I think if you spend a significant part of your life in any constructed univ…

It doesn't help that all the dystopian scenarios are being made into reality these days though ...

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#63

Post by exo-pla-net »

The author favors "pictures" and "videos" over the corrupting influence of the written word.

Suggesting that we read less and watch more television and YouTube has to be satire.

Decrying reading by assaulting readers with a long form essay has to be satire.

Asserting that readers have difficulty with over-abstraction, and arguing this point using analogies instead of concrete citations of harm caused, again, has to be satire.

Because if it isn't, my god what a shitty and grug-minded article.

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#64

Post by mcdermott »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #47
mcdermott wrote: post #3

I think what you read is the key here. Mindless reading of text messages, news headlines and social media posts is very different cognitively than reading actual literature, something like Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.

I smiled at the idea that Gravity's Rainbow is where you might start with 'actual literature'. A book so notoriously difficult to read that it has many guides on doing so and people have described to me how books such as Infinite Jest were light reading in comparison. I don't think you need to go quite as far as Pynchon ;-)

The funny thing is that Pynchon's working title for what became Gravity's Rainbow was "Mindless Pleasures" but the publisher made him change the name :)

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#65

Post by mcdermott »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #56
bigDinosaur wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smiled at the idea that Gravity's Rainbow is where you might start with 'actual literature'. A book so notoriously difficult to read that it has many guides on doing so and people have described to me how books such as Infinite Jest were light reading in comparison. I don't think you need to go quite as far as Pynchon ;-)

Start with The Crying of Lot 49, which is dense-ish but short, then Bleeding Edge, which is longer but closer to the storyline of a traditional novelist, and is semi-sci-fi. I then proceeded to Inherent Vice (because of the movie) and then Vineland. Vineland was difficult and heavy in parts, but I enjoyed it overall (the whole chapter on how the protagonist describes the receiving of a business card feels like some k…

My gateway drug was the Inherent Vice movie, after that I started with the Crying of Lot 49 and workes my way through his oeuvre. That's when I realized what literature was for and started reading like a madman ever since. Ony Marcel Proust perhaps bests Pynchon.

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#66

Post by wizofaus »

vlunkr wrote: post #37
sabellito wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way but I don't know why. Even when I spend time reading average fiction, it still feels better than watching youtube.

Here’s my hot take: because of the deeply held cultural belief that screen time is bad and books are good. Certainly there are truths behind that, but I think we need to realize that videos and even video games can be informative, uplifting, moving, etc, just like books. And conversely books can be a huge waste of time.

Re: "deeply held cultural belief that screen time is bad" - I agree that's likely part of it, and that belief probably isn't as rooted in fact as it might be. Not sure I can say I've experienced a computer game that I could say has come close to being as enlightening or life-changing as a book (though I have met people through playing them that have changed my life, which counts for something). TV is entertainment, and certainly the free-to-air stuff only exists because it keeps you glued to the screen long enough to absorb the ads that pay for it, and even relatively low-brow stuff (think, uh, Two & half Men, or I dunno, Gossip Girl) can still be oddly addictive and a huge time suck in a way that poorly written books etc. never are, because I far more quickly put them down and find something better to read.

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#67

Post by yannis7 »

barrysteve wrote: post #60

An unmentioned problem with reading too much is that one becomes reactive to text in their thinking and eventually struggles to create new thought. One can become over-reliant on an unending stream of words to push forward the internal train of thought.

+1+1 spot on -- it's a very common issue nowadays that few people actually touch upon, or be able to verbalise

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#68

Post by ZeroGravitas »

insightcheck wrote: post #43
PKop wrote: post #17

Author talks of text as abstraction compared to "edited" version of reality of visual media. But videos, movies, TV shows are also abstractions, possibly worse in that they more easily trick our subconscious into perceiving them as more real than words on a page while still being constructions of a "reality" based on the creator's point of view. So people think they have an understanding of the world based on fiction…

Sidney Lumet's film "Network" (1976) explores the idea of "hyperreality" in an accessible way, where people model their lives in reaction to relationships shown on television. >"I think this is odd, at least if over done, as if the constructed media representation is somehow evidence of anything true" Constructed media representations, like clips of movies, can still be quite useful for introducing an idea where the…

Lord of the Flies was a satire on a popular genre of books where rich, upper-class, white kids ended up in exotic locales and not only survived but thrived, including teaching the primitive natives how to do civilization. So basically satire on pro-colonial propaganda.

Re: Reading Ourselves to Death

#69

Post by avnigo »

> Think about what it feels like when you put down your phone after a bumper session of doomscrolling through the day’s awful news. It’s the psychological equivalent of stepping off a merry-go-round and expecting the world to keep spinning.

I've been wanting to explain this feeling for a while now, and this is so elegantly put.

Post reply on HN