Brains Adapting to a Different Kind of Reading Style

[latepaul]

I just read this article and it's intriguing and a little worrying.

I have to admit in the past few years I've noticed that it's harder for me concentrate on reading novels. I seem to enjoy it less than I once did. I used to put this down to my memory deteriorating since my younger years. Now I'm not so sure. I do still read a lot but most of that reading is online.

What experience has anyone else had with this? Do you think your reading style has changed? Can you still consume dense prose and convoluted sentences with relish? (assuming you ever did!)

BTW the article talks a lot about "screen v paper" but personally I think the real distinction is "online formatted text v straight prose" but that may be just me.

[QuantumIguana]

I'd have to see more evidence. It's one thing to scan an article for a piece of information, another to approach a book the same way. Do people really read books the same way that they would read a blog entry? The article has a couple anecdotes, but that isn't evidence.

Ramesh Kurup noticed something even more troubling. Working his way recently through a number of classic authors — George Eliot, Marcel Proust, that crowd — Kurup, 47, discovered that he was having trouble reading long sentences with multiple, winding clauses full of background information. Online sentences tend to be shorter, and the ones containing complicated information tend to link to helpful background material.

Did anyone really read Proust in the first place? These type of articles seem to imagine a past where everyone was reading serious classics where commas and semicolons were purchased in bulk quantities. Has the material that was actually was actually widely read changed much? We don't need to go back to Proust, if online reading has changed the content, the test is easy. Just take randomly selected books from 20-30 years ago, and compare them to books today. 20 years ago, few people were online. Has sentence construction become simplified over this time frame?

[fjtorres]

The world has been going to heck in a handbasket since greek times.
And the darn kids still won't get off the lawn.
(Shrug)

People are forever looking for ways to decry the new.
Video games teach kids to be murderers.
Cellphones give you brain cancer.
WiFi will roast you from the inside out.


And online reading will kill newpapers and journals...
Oh, wait...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Video games teach kids to be murderers.

This, at least, is dead wrong. It is a healthy outlet for our natural aggressive instincts, thus preventing us from carrying out our fantasies in real life.

And as such, it should be a government-mandated part of our daily routine.

[latepaul]

I realise it's easy to see it as yet another "in the good old days..." article and I'm as sceptical of that easy trope as anyone. And I'm a fan of ebooks, I love my gadgets and read a lot online. So I'm not one to automatically "decry the new"

HOWEVER

I've definitely noticed a change in my own reading. So I'm wondering a) how many other people experienced what I have and b) whether this is part of the reason why.

[QuantumIguana]

If reading online impairs the ability to read Proust or William James, for example, we should be able to test this. We should be able to find people who read a lot online and people who read little online. If the hypothesis is correct, those who read little online should perform better at reading Proust or James. Being a doomsayer gets a lot of attention.

[elcreative]

Having an eReader has increased the amount of reading (in particular novels) that I've been doing over the past few years since I got my first 505... I can now easily read anytime, anywhere and not have to lug around huge books or peer at small typefaces... it's had a serious impact on TV/Film watching... no great loss... of course I've not developed the three second social media reflex as I've not got the time to waste on such things so that may help...
I tend towards the idea that you end up with the results from how you live/work so if you spend the day twitching round the net onscreen then you may very well condition yourself to be unable to pay more than a few seconds attention to anything...

[kristalana]

I've definitely noticed the change in my reading, not with regard to novels, but with magazines, and long-form journalism as they call it now. I used to be a lot better about reading really long articles but I'm really not anymore, my attention span is shot. With books though, I'm not sure anything has changed; I'm reading more of those if anything. Which I suppose makes sense, as blogs, forums, etc have replaced magazines for me.

[DiapDealer]

I think that society in general has evolved in a more ADD direction--moving quickly from one bright shiny thing to the next. But I'm not willing to blame it on online reading (alone anyway). I imagine it to be more more media- and culturally-based in general: sound bites, video montages, action sequences, 23/42 minute episodes, hectic schedules, and phones with the entire world at our fingertips.

We don't live in a world that's very conducive to slowly savoring anything. Some people can ignore all that--others find themselves (unsurprisingly) unable to focus as well as they used to for any length of time.

I don't say this to imply that the world is going to hell in a handbasket or anything; only that the world is changing. But just because our lives are being thrown at us at the speed of light doesn't mean we have to consume it at that speed. You can still slow down and smell the prose if it's important for you to do so.

[jandrew]

I'd tempted to argue if my expository skills weren't so enfeebled by the pervasive 140 character pseudo-thoughts to which I've grown accusto

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think that society in general has evolved in a more ADD direction--moving quickly from one bright shiny thing to the next. But I'm not willing to blame it on online reading (alone anyway). I imagine it to be more more media- and culturally-based in general: sound bites, video montages, action sequences, 23/42 minute episodes, hectic schedules, and phones with the entire world at our fingertips.

I agree. There seems to be such a drive to fill one's time to capacity, as well as a change in what constitutes a "useful" way to spend what little isn't already taken up by other things, so things seem to start to be tailored for smaller timeslots. The things that people manage to pack into their schedules is astounding to me.

And because that's so not my style, I end up being the oddball, with others lamenting about my "empty life" despite the fact that I'm not complaining one bit. Is that why I can settle into a novel just as easily as I always have? No idea, really, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I agree. There seems to be such a drive to fill one's time to capacity, as well as a change in what constitutes a "useful" way to spend what little isn't already taken up by other things, so things seem to start to be tailored for smaller timeslots. The things that people manage to pack into their schedules is astounding to me.

What I notice more and more, is that many people seem to be taking a huge amount of pride in how busy they are, and how hectic their day has been. I understand having "hectic" inflicted on us at various times, but I don't understand "frantically busy" being a goal that one takes pride in. I'm not built that way. Hectic is a temporary (and unwanted) condition to be survived and quickly remedied... not sought out.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What I notice more and more, is that many people seem to be taking a huge amount of pride in how busy they are, and how hectic their day has been. I understand having "hectic" inflicted on us at various times, but I don't understand "frantically busy" being a goal that one takes pride in. I'm not built that way. Hectic is a temporary (and unwanted) condition to be survived and quickly remedied... not sought out.

We are alike, it seems. If my life ever gets to the point where I only have time to read something the size of an internet article, it's a problem in need of fixing, not something to adapt to.

To go back to the OP:

Can you still consume dense prose and convoluted sentences with relish? (assuming you ever did!)

I don't think I ever did, really. Sure, I can read dense and convoluted but I'm a visual reader so if the style interferes with the visuals in my head, it's just not as enjoyable for me. I've always been that way. Now, some "dense" prose fits my style just fine, so I guess it's more accurately a matter of author voice rather than the number or size of the words and the complexity of sentence construction.

I object to the term "serious reading" (from the article title). What does that even mean?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I object to the term "serious reading" (from the article title). What does that even mean?

Slogging through James Joyce or some soul-draining bore of a story of neurotic university professors.

If it is accessible and enjoyable it can't possibly be serious.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Did anyone really read Proust in the first place?

Proust didn't read Proust.