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

Why can’t we read anymore?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 198 posts

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#121

Post by visakanv »

I've memorized a relevant XKCD just for this occasion, because it comes up so much: http://xkcd.com/1227/

> "Intellectual laziness and the hurry of the age have produced a craving for literary nips. The torbid brain... has grown too weak for sustained thought." – Israel Zangwill, The Bachelor's Club, 1891

I highly, highly recommend everybody read "The Information: How The Internet Gets Inside Us" by Adam Gopnik: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-information

It points out how this 'Why can't we X anymore", "in the past it was better", "the future will be amazing", "the future will be horrible", and "everything is kinda the same" perspectives have been repeated, remixed, rehashed over and over again.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#122

Post by Schwolop »

Part of the problem is articles like this. There were perhaps five interesting sentences of content in that entire piece, and several hundred entirely redundant words and personal examples used only to set the tone.

If modern writers have such disrespect for their audience, is it any wonder some of that audience hasn't the attention span to stick with it?

Older, serious, and timeless literature requires deep concentration because the authors use their thousands of words to express deep pathos that can't be trivialised. It takes practice to commit oneself to a book like that for long enough to get into a flow wherein it can be understood and appreciated. It's _easier_ to read fluff because the dopamine hits quicker, but (for some people) it's worth the effort to read something more meaningful.

In some ways there's an analogy to coding; some books I can't read unless I've got the time to be isolated from distractions. Similarly, some coding problems I can't make progress unless I know I've got more than a half hour to pre-load my brain cache.

Given that I'm railing about redundant words, this seems an appropriate point to stop.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#123

Post by gradstudent »

zaphar wrote: post #104
vlasev wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, 500 books in one summer? Yeah right! What kind of books? Were they long? That's over 4 books per DAY! I don't think so.

The sizes varied but most of them were fiction. One day I read seven in an evening. It's not that special. It was the result of a highly insular life spent not doing much other than read.

Seven books in one evening? I cannot fathom such a thing. Were these "books" of the comic variety perchance?

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#124

Post by nevster »

zaphar wrote: post #104
vlasev wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, 500 books in one summer? Yeah right! What kind of books? Were they long? That's over 4 books per DAY! I don't think so.

The sizes varied but most of them were fiction. One day I read seven in an evening. It's not that special. It was the result of a highly insular life spent not doing much other than read.

Wish I could read that fast...

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#125

Post by jwr »

Schwolop wrote: post #122

Part of the problem is articles like this. There were perhaps five interesting sentences of content in that entire piece, and several hundred entirely redundant words and personal examples used only to set the tone. If modern writers have such disrespect for their audience, is it any wonder some of that audience hasn't the attention span to stick with it? Older, serious, and timeless literature requires deep concentr…

This is the problem I have with the recent surge of popularity of "long-form" articles. Most are long on form, but short on content. People get excited about this form of writing (often pulling in whole ideology of distraction-free reading), but I find it hard to get excited when the actual meaning is scarce.

I don't have that problem with good books, so don't put me in the "modern civilization problems" drawer.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#126

Post by WA »

Last year, I read four books.

Last year, I read 25 books. And the year before, too. And the year before. Then I stopped reading this blog post.

The number of books is a weak benchmark, because I read books as thin as 100 pages up to 1,300 pages. I read blog posts that have 50 pages and some that have 140 characters.

Reading is enjoyable, but still a form of consumption. There are only so many ideas per week you can think a lot about and thus, you can read only so many books that really benefit your life and make you change your mindset.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#127

Post by davidgerard »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #42
jasode wrote: post #2

I've read over 500 fiction books and 2000+ non-fiction. I've read many of the big thick classics like Moby Dick, War & Peace, Infinite Jest. I've kept a spreadsheet of all the books I've read somewhat like Art Garfunkel[1] (of Simon & Garfunkel music duo). I've also read Nick Carr's "The Shallows"[2] and other authors about about the web's effect on attention span, distractions, etc. With all that said, I'm not convi…

It depends. People used to read 500 page books on compilers. Would you read an equivalently long blog article on compilers? With the Internet we've gained the ability to more readily acquire knowledge in little bits at a time, over a lot of areas. But most of us are incapable of reading a really huge article in depth. And thus we get more shallow levels of understanding, but across a wider range of topics. This expla…

You mean, have I read these books when the entire thing is put on the web? Yes.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#128

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

damian2000 wrote: post #103
jader201 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'll have to continually go back and re-read what I feel like I've just read." This is me. "and how I image most people read most of the time." I wish I knew if this were true. I've always felt that I have some sort of "disorder" or some form of ADHD or something that causes my mind to wander anytime I try to read a book. I'm a terribly slow reader for this reason (at least when it comes to books -- internet article…

> > "and how I image most people read most of the time." > I wish I knew if this were true. I think it really depends on the book (or part of the book) you are reading. Often the start of a book will be designed to grab your attention, but its possible to lose interest part way through the book, or have to concentrate harder to finish chapters. Its common - my high school English teacher told us about it way back man…

The traditional three act structure means books and movies often start with plenty of action, pause the pace in the middle, where characters mostly talk or walk or think or remember rather than doing action stuff, and build up to a big climax with faster pacing at the end.

It's a very popular structure. But now that everyone seems to have ADHD, it's being replaced by episodic structures which end each chapter with a cliff hanger.

Episodic structure isn't new, but quite a few savvy writers have discovered it's a better fit for ebook publishing than traditional long form.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#129

Post by majelix »

Retra wrote: post #26
jasode wrote: post #2

I've read over 500 fiction books and 2000+ non-fiction. I've read many of the big thick classics like Moby Dick, War & Peace, Infinite Jest. I've kept a spreadsheet of all the books I've read somewhat like Art Garfunkel[1] (of Simon & Garfunkel music duo). I've also read Nick Carr's "The Shallows"[2] and other authors about about the web's effect on attention span, distractions, etc. With all that said, I'm not convi…

Whenever I real long-form books, my mind will occasionally wander into other areas, while my eyes keep reading on. I'll have to continually go back and re-read what I feel like I've just read. This isn't just an internet-fueled lack of attention, it's how I've always read, and how I image most people read most of the time. The difference is with a website, you can go investigate your immediate thoughts rather than co…

> I'll have to continually go back and re-read what I feel like I've just read.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Limit your first reading to basic understanding of the plot and setting; ignore exploration of "deeper" themes until subsequent re-reads.

Re: Why can’t we read anymore?

#130

Post by klipt »

Schwolop wrote: post #122

Part of the problem is articles like this. There were perhaps five interesting sentences of content in that entire piece, and several hundred entirely redundant words and personal examples used only to set the tone. If modern writers have such disrespect for their audience, is it any wonder some of that audience hasn't the attention span to stick with it? Older, serious, and timeless literature requires deep concentr…

> If modern writers have such disrespect for their audience

As opposed to whom, paid-by-the-word Dickens and his amazing menagerie of circumlocutions? ;-)

Post reply on HN