One of the assignments I had for work was to write a review of a book that was to be posted on the library's blog. I wasn't sure quite how to do this, so I decided to write as if I was writing a post for my own blog with a bit of academical writing creeping in. It turned out much too long for the library blog and I made a much shorter version. The fact that it was too long doesn't surprise me but, as you'll see, the topic prompted a wry grin at "too long." It's not up yet on the library blog. Since I had essentially written the first draft of the book review for my blog, I thought I might as well put it up here:
Nicholas Carr's book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, is definitely food for thought. Just about any review out there at least acknowledges that Carr's points are valid. I was merely going to skim the book, but then I started actually reading it. And I'm glad I did. I read all except the last 50 pages (then it was either read the rest or write a review). While reading, I was amused about the fact that I was reading a book about how hard most people find reading a book is these days.
Like most librarians, I am a bibliophile. I was one of those kids whose noses could be found stuck in a book much of the time. I remember being able to read for hours at a time and in all kinds of places. Now I'm happy if I get half an hour of uninterrupted reading and I am much more easily distracted. I had wondered why my reading abilities had changed; I was never quite satisfied with "growing up" as the answer.
While reading this book, I came to realize that it's not just me. Nearly all of us are willing to admit on some level that our internet browsing habits have indeed affected how our minds work. The general consensus is this feeling of distractedness and the diminished ability for deep thought.
However, it seems that few of us are willing to change how prevalent the role the internet plays in our lives. Even the author himself blogs, Facebooks, and tweets among other internet-based activities. For the book he moved somewhere that had now cellphone or broadband internet service, but after he finished writing he plugged right back in. "'I'm not sure I could live without it'" (Horgan).
There is definitely many advantages offered to us by the powers of the internet. After all, we have more information at our fingertips than ever before in human history; Google's main goal has always been to make as much information accessible as possible. Another big one is to get people in and out of their search engine as fast as possible. As Carr explains, what it really boils down to is "More clicks means more money" and this isn't limited to just from their search results pages but on any page we click from. Google would rather that we didn't spend the time focusing on the text. What does this mean for Google Books then? Are they pursuing conflicting goals? As it happens, digitizing books fits right in with their goals.
The ability to search full-texts of books is a great feature, but one that can be easily abused. As a way to find relevant information on a topic, it can help determine if the book warrants deeper reading. Skimming itself is not bad, but it has become the dominant mode of reading. Really, Google Books is not a library of book but a library of snippets. Therefore, when we read online material, "(we) revert to being 'mere decoders of information.' Our ability to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction remains largely disengaged" (page 124).
We can push ourselves to read deeply on the internet, but that's not what is rewarded. The internet is very interactive and immersive, yet more stimulation does not always equate better comprehension and almost never does on the internet. The main example Carr gave for stimulation is hypertext links dispersed throughout web page texts. It doesn't matter if we don't actually click on those links; our brains have to decide what to do with that link (to click or not to click) and it acts as a distraction, even if it seems like the tiniest roadbump.
One of the analogies that helped me grasp another one of Carr's concepts involves an imaginary bathtub (long term memory) and a thimble (working memory). Carr explains:
"When we read a book, the information faucet provides a steady drip, which we can control by the pace of our reading. Through our single-minded concentration on the text, we can transfer all or most of the information, thimbleful by thimbleful, into long-term memory and forge the rich associations essential to the creation of schemas. With the Net, we face many information faucets, all going full blast. Our little thimble overflows as we rush from one faucet to the next. We're able to transfer only a small portion of the information to long-term memory, and what we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from one source" (page 125).
Meg Trauner, a librarian, suggests that we all make reading print books part of our daily routine, since it's been suggested that this keeps our brains wired for the ability for deep thinking that Carr and many others fear we are losing. The concept is quite simple, similar to exercising muscles to keep them from getting weak. Just as our bodies need a balanced and varied diet, so do our minds. If we lose the ability for deep thought, we lose the ability to create new connections necessary for the advancement of culture, society, and, somewhat ironically, technology. In fact, how about starting with reading The Shallows yourself?
REFERENCE:
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company: New York, 2010.
Trauner, Meg. "Book Review: The Shallows." Ford Library Blog. 15 November 2010. Duke University, The FUQUA School of Business, Ford Library. http://blogs.fuqua.duke.edu/fordlibrary/2010/11/15/book-review-the-shallows/
Horgan, John. "So Many Links, So Little Time." The Wall Street Journal. 4 June 2010. The Wall Street Journal, Bookshelf.
FURTHER READING:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256790495393722.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2255923/pagenum/all/#p2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Lehrer-t.html?_r=1
http://www.slate.com/id/2255923
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newsletters/newsletterbucketacademicnewswire/885758-440/a_case_for_mindful_browsing.html.csp
Nicholas Carr's book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, is definitely food for thought. Just about any review out there at least acknowledges that Carr's points are valid. I was merely going to skim the book, but then I started actually reading it. And I'm glad I did. I read all except the last 50 pages (then it was either read the rest or write a review). While reading, I was amused about the fact that I was reading a book about how hard most people find reading a book is these days.
Like most librarians, I am a bibliophile. I was one of those kids whose noses could be found stuck in a book much of the time. I remember being able to read for hours at a time and in all kinds of places. Now I'm happy if I get half an hour of uninterrupted reading and I am much more easily distracted. I had wondered why my reading abilities had changed; I was never quite satisfied with "growing up" as the answer.
While reading this book, I came to realize that it's not just me. Nearly all of us are willing to admit on some level that our internet browsing habits have indeed affected how our minds work. The general consensus is this feeling of distractedness and the diminished ability for deep thought.
However, it seems that few of us are willing to change how prevalent the role the internet plays in our lives. Even the author himself blogs, Facebooks, and tweets among other internet-based activities. For the book he moved somewhere that had now cellphone or broadband internet service, but after he finished writing he plugged right back in. "'I'm not sure I could live without it'" (Horgan).
There is definitely many advantages offered to us by the powers of the internet. After all, we have more information at our fingertips than ever before in human history; Google's main goal has always been to make as much information accessible as possible. Another big one is to get people in and out of their search engine as fast as possible. As Carr explains, what it really boils down to is "More clicks means more money" and this isn't limited to just from their search results pages but on any page we click from. Google would rather that we didn't spend the time focusing on the text. What does this mean for Google Books then? Are they pursuing conflicting goals? As it happens, digitizing books fits right in with their goals.
The ability to search full-texts of books is a great feature, but one that can be easily abused. As a way to find relevant information on a topic, it can help determine if the book warrants deeper reading. Skimming itself is not bad, but it has become the dominant mode of reading. Really, Google Books is not a library of book but a library of snippets. Therefore, when we read online material, "(we) revert to being 'mere decoders of information.' Our ability to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction remains largely disengaged" (page 124).
We can push ourselves to read deeply on the internet, but that's not what is rewarded. The internet is very interactive and immersive, yet more stimulation does not always equate better comprehension and almost never does on the internet. The main example Carr gave for stimulation is hypertext links dispersed throughout web page texts. It doesn't matter if we don't actually click on those links; our brains have to decide what to do with that link (to click or not to click) and it acts as a distraction, even if it seems like the tiniest roadbump.
One of the analogies that helped me grasp another one of Carr's concepts involves an imaginary bathtub (long term memory) and a thimble (working memory). Carr explains:
"When we read a book, the information faucet provides a steady drip, which we can control by the pace of our reading. Through our single-minded concentration on the text, we can transfer all or most of the information, thimbleful by thimbleful, into long-term memory and forge the rich associations essential to the creation of schemas. With the Net, we face many information faucets, all going full blast. Our little thimble overflows as we rush from one faucet to the next. We're able to transfer only a small portion of the information to long-term memory, and what we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from one source" (page 125).
Meg Trauner, a librarian, suggests that we all make reading print books part of our daily routine, since it's been suggested that this keeps our brains wired for the ability for deep thinking that Carr and many others fear we are losing. The concept is quite simple, similar to exercising muscles to keep them from getting weak. Just as our bodies need a balanced and varied diet, so do our minds. If we lose the ability for deep thought, we lose the ability to create new connections necessary for the advancement of culture, society, and, somewhat ironically, technology. In fact, how about starting with reading The Shallows yourself?
REFERENCE:
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company: New York, 2010.
Trauner, Meg. "Book Review: The Shallows." Ford Library Blog. 15 November 2010. Duke University, The FUQUA School of Business, Ford Library. http://blogs.fuqua.duke.edu/fordlibrary/2010/11/15/book-review-the-shallows/
Horgan, John. "So Many Links, So Little Time." The Wall Street Journal. 4 June 2010. The Wall Street Journal, Bookshelf.
FURTHER READING:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256790495393722.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2255923/pagenum/all/#p2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Lehrer-t.html?_r=1
http://www.slate.com/id/2255923
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newsletters/newsletterbucketacademicnewswire/885758-440/a_case_for_mindful_browsing.html.csp
No comments:
Post a Comment