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

It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 349 posts

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#231

Post by switchbak »

trashb wrote: post #213

And yet, strangely, Americans are probably reading more words than ever before. This sentence undermines the whole article. People do read more than ever. But we don't recognize it as such. We read on our phone while intermittently reading subtitles of Netflix in the background. We read every time we look at a computer, phone, advertisement etc. But we only count reading paper as "real reading". The shape of reading…

"the "deep" thinking associated with reading has always been a bit of an elitist idea" - precisely. This is all about massaging the categories such that consuming or producing a given type of media in a particular style is "good" and everything else is inadequate.

So if I read a bunch of tech manuals, I'm not a reader because it's not fine literature?

What if I read them as PDFs? What if I print them? Where's the line?

I think we ought to call it something other than simply "reading", because the author seems to be leveraging the dual-meaning of that word to make their point more strongly. But "consuming literature for enjoyment" doesn't come off quite as spicy as pretending that others that don't are illiterate.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#232

Post by eudamoniac »

I would like to argue against the common opinion that Reading Is Good. I don't believe that reading pulp is good in any way. I don't believe that reading an airport novel is any better than watching TV.

Books have the potential to better the mind, but they don't do so simply by being written words. The books must be of a certain artistic caliber. The push to get people reading in general cannot be the end goal. The end goal is to get people to read quality books, to better the mind, affirm life, practice empathy, experience pathos, feel the grace of God. Too many forget this is the end goal and just think reading words on paper is somehow intrinsically a noble endeavor.

I think the common advice to get people into books is wrong and misses the point. "Find a fun trashy book and just read it" is maybe not productive advice unless attention rehabilitation is needed. Sure, some of those people might eventually stumble upon a good book, but advice can be much more efficient than that.

Here's what I would recommend to a burgeoning reader: There are many easy and fun books that have artistic merit; read those. Find them via Booktok lists from pretentious looking people, or common school reading lists, or wherever; generally only read things you have heard of or that you saw on a list somewhere; don't randomly pick off the shelf. Teenager classics like 1984, Book of the New Sun, Kafka on the Shore, American Psycho, Lord of the Rings are fun and easy reads that have meat on the bone. Ignore the airport novel and anything published recently. The average book has the same lack of value as the average TV show, just less entertaining, more boring, and more effortful to experience. Why would you waste time and effort consuming boring, less entertaining media when the phone and the TV are right there? But when you find good books, there is no replacement; you are doing an entirely different thing than mindlessly entertaining yourself. That is what we're trying to do.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#233

Post by [deleted] »

ogogmad wrote: post #215
bkandel wrote: post #174

> Margaret Rennix, Harvard’s assistant director for humanities and social-sciences support, told me she’d spoken with a student who was struggling to read a book written in Old English. The culprit: Anthony Burgess’s 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange. (The student used ChatGPT to “translate” the book into easier language.) Has the author read A Clockwork Orange? It is filled with made-up "slang" that's basically just Rus…

Wow. That went over the heads of both a Harvard student and an Atlantic journalist.

[deleted]

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#234

Post by ffsm8 »

everdrive wrote: post #155

You would be surprised just how quickly you can re-learn the focus to enjoy long-form writing and novels. Much like exercise, don't let your ego get in the way. Find something you enjoy, even if it's a bit trash, and just make it a habit. Like with everything you do regularly, your brain will get better at it, the habit will become more automatic, and you'll find yourself wanting to read more, and more often. It's ve…

What's also massively undervalued is medium high dosage of the amino acid creatine. If you take >10g/day you'll have a much easier time staying focused over long periods. It becomes noticeable only after consistent intake however, and only if you actually pay attention to it - as you won't feel any different. (And it's effect is also supposedly diminished with high Coffein intake)

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#235

Post by vlucas »

areoform wrote: post #55
vlucas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even cinema is dying and nobody seems to care that much. Cinema is dying from mostly self-inflicted wounds though. They keep making movies (or re-making movies ) with bad writing, bad stories, and unrealistic character development arcs that not many people want to watch. Good movies have been rewarded in theatres. Top Gun: Maverick, Obsession, Project Hail Mary, etc. all had great box office sales when other movies…

Top Gun: Maverick, Obsession, Project Hail Mary Those movies might be good, but cinema are they not. Cinema traditionally has meant movies like, À bout de souffle and Citizen Kane.

Definitions vary for sure. I just mentioned them because they did well at the box office, which is what will keep "cinema" alive.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#236

Post by eudamoniac »

taeric wrote: post #159
everdrive wrote: post #155

You would be surprised just how quickly you can re-learn the focus to enjoy long-form writing and novels. Much like exercise, don't let your ego get in the way. Find something you enjoy, even if it's a bit trash, and just make it a habit. Like with everything you do regularly, your brain will get better at it, the habit will become more automatic, and you'll find yourself wanting to read more, and more often. It's ve…

To add to this, it isn't "doing it bad" if you aren't out there reading deep texts. Just as it isn't "doing it badly" if you can't run a 4 minute mile. As you say, you get better at what you are doing. If you want to get faster, at anything, you don't really have the option of skipping the slow phase.

But it's also important to realize that it is "doing it bad" if you are hoping to run a 4 minute mile but your only training is slowly walking around the block forever. At some point you have to seek out more substantial books. You can't just continually read pulp fiction and think you're going to improve at anything; you have to progress.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#237

Post by strix_varius »

wuliwong wrote: post #200
everdrive wrote: post #155

You would be surprised just how quickly you can re-learn the focus to enjoy long-form writing and novels. Much like exercise, don't let your ego get in the way. Find something you enjoy, even if it's a bit trash, and just make it a habit. Like with everything you do regularly, your brain will get better at it, the habit will become more automatic, and you'll find yourself wanting to read more, and more often. It's ve…

I did this in the last couple years, I used an 'atomic habits' kinda approach. I put a book on the back of the toilet and pledged to read 1 page before looking at my phone. It worked out nicely, I've read a bunch of books over the last year or so after kicking it off in that way. I am also not a lifelong reader, I didn't start reading until college. My girlfriend read a ton and the first Lord of the Rings movie was a…

Some of the statistics in the article included audiobooks as reading. It seems like they must trigger at least a subset of the qualities of reading (like maintaining an imagined environment, parsing sentences and paragraphs into meaning, etc)

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#238

Post by taeric »

eudamoniac wrote: post #236
taeric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, it isn't "doing it bad" if you aren't out there reading deep texts. Just as it isn't "doing it badly" if you can't run a 4 minute mile. As you say, you get better at what you are doing. If you want to get faster, at anything, you don't really have the option of skipping the slow phase.

But it's also important to realize that it is "doing it bad" if you are hoping to run a 4 minute mile but your only training is slowly walking around the block forever. At some point you have to seek out more substantial books. You can't just continually read pulp fiction and think you're going to improve at anything; you have to progress.

Largely fair. This is one where the specific goals, I think, work against people. I know most coaches will attach "attainable" to goals, to combat that.

To that end, if your goal is just to read more, there is no reason to worry about how substantial your books are. However, if you goal is to read more substantially, you should start by aiming a bit higher than where you are. Achieve that, then adjust target.

Progress, then, can come either in more volume of reading where you are; or in more substantive reading. Either are valid, to me.

To take this to the exercise. If your goal is to do a fast mile, agreed that just walking the dog is unlikely to help. If your goal is to be physically active, simple walks punch well above what people think they do.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#239

Post by apparent »

DeluluDon wrote: post #70
apparent wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with my girls (parents of boys seem to mostly have a different experience). Hopefully your kid gets access to digital libraries like Epic or Sora at school. There are also public libraries with ebook lending that can make the habit cheaper.

My mother taught me how to read, I'm male. Incidentally, I scored higher than my peers in reading. I still read, but it has taken the form of social media which have no more length than a blurb.

It's not a hard and fast rule, for sure. But we have heard from many boy parents who wish their boys read more (or much at all). We, OTOH, have to tell our girls to put their books down and do something else from time to time.

Re: It seems that the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history

#240

Post by apparent »

lapcat wrote: post #60
apparent wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading an entire book takes much more time than placing an online bet.

> Reading an entire book takes much more time than placing an online bet. Yes, but do you only do things for pleasure if they're done quickly? Is your sex always over in a minute? Also, I was responding to this: > Likewise, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a totally different measure than "placed a bet last year". Yes, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a different measure than "placed a bet last ye…

> Yes, but do you only do things for pleasure if they're done quickly? Is your sex always over in a minute?

This is a valid critique, but the motivations are not the same for reading books and gambling. Both are done partly for entertainment, but reading is partly for edification whereas gambling is partly for making money (in theory, at least). People want to make money almost universally, whereas ongoing edification is something that people do not enjoy intrinsically (meaning they would do it less if it takes more time).

> Yes, reading for pleasure "on any given day" is a different measure than "placed a bet last year", but "read a book of any kind in 2022" is the same length of time, though not the exact same year.

I critiqued the two comparisons separately for a reason. One conflated a time-consuming activity with a quick one, and the other conflated time periods of comparison. I do not claim that both critiques apply to both cases, just that each comparison is flawed.

Post reply on HN