Brains Adapting to a Different Kind of Reading Style

[dki]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I used to stay up into the late hours of the night reading when I just couldn't put a book down. I've been up past 4 AM reading and then gone to work in the morning a bit tired, but nothing that some coffee won't fix. I don't do that anymore. But it's nothing to do with the internet, it's just getting older.

I hoped so, but now I wonder. There's just so much available at all times that I get bogged down just trying to make a choice. Back in the day there were other forms of entertainment as movies, theater, pub, clubs, libraries, meeting friend for lunch or dinner, or going shopping (ach, the bookstores of old), but they all required you to do more that just pick up your laptop, TV remote or Xbox. Now it's all at your fingertips, and I think that part of my problem with not being able to focus reading is due to that. My grandparents and parents did not have that problem, they all read well into ripe old age. I spend more time looking for the books than reading them, simply because I can do it from my home. I don't have to go anywhere, and I like browsing with a cup of coffee in my den, so there. Reading became secondary. My TBR list reached epic proportions. I hate starting on any series, because they just rum loo long, and I cannot keep interest in them throughout all 59 (or so) parts. Back in a day I loved series, the longer the better.

And where I was going with that?? I forget - I just got distracted trying to find out how to trim my dog's hair and use a gel nail polish (not on the dog, on me). See - there is simply so much information I find useful that nothing can keep my attention for long. I always have the feeling I should be doing something else, reading something else and if it was not available, I would be OK with that, but is IS available....

So the bottom line is that I have a feeling that all these "sound bites" all these short articles, all that "just to the point" information I seek is changing the way I look at the novels. The whole point of a novel is that it is not "just to the point". And I am not sure I can tolerate this, never mind enjoy it for hours on end as I used too. Also, I find that I am less likely to go to the movies, or even watch a movie on TV. I simply cannot stay interested in a movie for 2 hours. Even with the pop-corn and all. Now it's TV series. I hope I can retain that 45 minute attention span I still kind of have.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Isn't it more likely that people with a naturally high level of aggression choose to play shooting games, than that playing shooting games creates the aggression?

That I have to disagree with. This is anecdotal evidence. I have a pretty high level of aggression (just ask my co-workers or DH) and I would never play a shooter. Just bores me to tears. I want to take a nap in the middle of a fight. To be honest, I rarely play any other kind of a games anymore - see short attention span explanation above, but I used to. Shooters - never. There's just nothing like a real-life fight, that's all. No virtual bloodbath can compete. So I think that people with a high level of aggression vent in real life. But YMMV.

Overall, I'm getting worried. Very, very worried. But there's a good in all that - I won't stay worried for long - I will get distracted and forget all about it. I begin to remind myself of my dog more and more.

dki

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

the only thing that changed is attention span: there's so many different kinds of entertainment right now that people focus on no one, they just zap between them all. Back in other centuries, it was pretty much just books and sex.

My focus for a novel when it is really attention grabbing is as strong as it ever was. I have tons of books on the kindle (and luckily no game or videos), but I'm able to concentrate on one alone when they have my full attention.

Booze and gambling, too.
For the rich, those, plus hunting, parties, and even more booze.

[TechniSol]

After considerable reading of this thread and deep contemplation, I have decided to do away with all those other distractions in favor of more sex with reading afterward instead of cuddling, or instant verbal replay and well meaning critique(I'll never do that again!)... phew, I feel so much better, or will until someone accuses me of distraction and frisbees my Kobo into the nearest wall in a fit of self judged "righteous" pique. (Cuz as we all know, the righteous are afforded extra priviliges...)

A lot has happened societally over the last hundred years to change the ways we all spend our time. Obviously, there are many more opportunities when we do permit ourselves some time to relax... Flappy bird, PS3, XBOX, blondes, brunettes, redheads, embroidery, astrophysics, needlepoint, quantum mechanics, and so forth.

Part of the perceived lack of attention span is that having so many plates in the air at once on a daily basis changes the way you work internally, if you're not at capacity you're looking around to see where you can grab another plate and stick. The object being to keep them all spinning, but likely none at the same rate or level of stability. This new programming, if you will, does not lend itself very well to shifting gears into a more relaxing yet involved process like reading.

While reading we are not only experiencing a story and getting to know characters, we're evaluating those character's actions, words, and beliefs against our own and weighing or possibly re-evaluating our positions, etc. That is a deeply involving and introspective process that we mostly perform on autopilot while reading, but it requires sufficient resources to be free for it to happen. My theory is that the requirement for a good reading experience may in some ways not be unlike the state that many(most?) women need to be in to relax and really enjoy a good roll in the hay... of course, good material helps.(We all know men will read anything... anytime, nearly anywhere we feel confident enough we won't be caught. Yes ladies, we do fear readis interruptus.)

-and now I've come full circle back to sex...(Yay!)

[Prestidigitweeze]

Years ago, when I read attacks against gaming by critics who misunderstood the medium, I used to look at their most transgressive examples and play the games myself. I tried Manhunt and Rule of Rose as soon as they were released because I wanted to see why they were being maligned by conservative critics in every country. My sense was that the games were not only easy targets but, superficially, offered imaginative possibilities that authorities didn't want players to contemplate.

Of the two games, Manhunt was easily the most offensive, but I enjoyed it for that very reason: Getting murdered viciously left you with the amusing aftertaste of irony. Rule of Rose, on the other hand, is still my favorite game -- not for the combat mechanics, which are unnecessarily frustrating, but for the aesthetic, soundtrack and style, all of which are the closest to fine art of any game I've played, including Ico. Rule of Rose bears a closer resemblance to *Lord of the Flies* and Edward Gorey's *The Gashlycrumb Tinies* than to any of the prurient sources then offered by game-phobic critics. Critics were completely ignorant in their attacks.

Critics had similar misconceptions about Persona 3: The "transformer" that allowed the player to conjure one of their personae looked like a revolver, which one placed next to one's head. Endless critics then asserted that the game promoted teen suicide, but anyone who actually played the game will know that it promoted empathy for other people (including the elderly), a sense of personal worth and fair conduct in battle. And since the game was rated for mature audiences, no one was likely to be confused by the symbolism any more than they would have been by the pantheon of gods and mythical beings from nearly every religion who comprised one's available personae.

Here's what I think:

Violent content in games is only a threat for the brief period in which a user is new to the medium. For a few weeks, the first-person camera and controls can make the player feel almost unbearable tension, as if the events in a game were real. But then the controls and camera take their rightful place in the reflexes and the imagination, and the player experiences games with necessary detachment.

That's why gamers will say things like, "I loved that game. I had to die forty-two times to get to the dead nun's staff, but after that, I had unlimited ammo to electrocute anyone who stood in the way of the church." The person who says that is no more interested in killing themselves than they are in killing anyone else. Like any other medium, gaming has become compartmentalized for them.

The first time I played a survival horror game for several hours, I remember taking a shower the next morning and feeling as if I were pressing control buttons that led my hands to grasp the soap. I was conscious of making my body turn to face the "items" hanging from the shower head.

But after a week, the experience of playing found its place in my mind's conditioning, and the real world and gaming no longer intersected. The experience and perception of each thing had nothing to do with the other, let alone creating correlations in my conduct.

Call it the brain adapting to a different kind of experience.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

When I read attacks on gaming by people who misunderstood the medium...

IMHO, it's all bullshit, with games "promoting violence" and other such attacks. People who become violent after playing certain kinds of games probably have violent tendencies already, even if not playing those games. In that case, one should keep the those people away from games, not keep the games away from all people.

I played Carmageddon 1 and 2 a lot, back in the day, and I don't even own a car; not back then, not now, as I am not allowed to drive because of an eyesight problem. Still, it was great fun trying to splatter people over the sidewalk as far as possible, hitting several at once, and shoving other cars off the roof of a building (yes, you can drive on top of the buildings in this game) and seeing them explode in the streets.

I also played games such as Soldier of Fortune and Return to Castle Wolfenstein (the only shooters I liked back then), and I had great fun blowing people's limbs off, trying to hit specific area's such as blowing off the hand holding their weapon, and trying to get Nazi's to drop using a single headshot from a sniper rifle in RTCW.

One of the best parts in Dungeon Keeper 2 is the torture chamber, but I'd never torture anyone IRL. I think I just couldn't do it.

I never feel like doing these kinds of things to real people (ah well; normally, I don't, but there are exceptions ); not back then, and not now, so these games did not make me any more violent than I'd normally be, but they did provide me with lots of fun, making it possible to do things and commit amounts and types of violence that would be out of the question for me in real life.

[Ndaara]

Novel reading took a nosedive for me, when I adopted my first tablet. Suddenly it became nearly impossible to concentrate. Assuming it was the distraction aspect, I shut off the wifi to read... but that wasn't it. Took a year but finally dusted off my ebook reader and was able to concentrate again. Although the convenience of a single device is compelling for me, I find it best (for me) to have multiple devices for different activities. I'm also sleeping well again (always read before bed and the backlight seems to mess with my brain).

The tablet does allow me to leave the laptop at home for most traveling, so I don't begrudge its intrusion... but I do miss that year of novels I never got through.

[DiapDealer]

My novel reading rate increased when I went from physical books to a dedicated eink reader. It increased again when I went from a dedicated reader to a backlit tablet. At nearly 50 years of age, I'm reading more novels than I ever did when I was younger. No one is more surprised about it than me.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My novel reading rate increased when I went from physical books to a dedicated eink reader. It increased again when I went from a dedicated reader to a backlit tablet. At nearly 50 years of age, I'm reading more novels than I ever did when I was younger. No one is more surprised about it than me.

Whereas I still read a lot, but am reading far less than I did.

Here's what my best friend once said when I suggested stopping by St. Mark's Books (and he was a novelist!): "I hate going to bookstores with you! It's like an alcoholic making the rounds."

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

IMHO, it's all bullshit, with games "promoting violence" and other such attacks.

I think we can agree on that, but I'm curious if you've ever had this experience:

The first time I played a [] game for several hours, I remember taking a shower the next morning and feeling as if I were pressing control buttons that led my hands to grasp the soap. I was conscious of making my body turn to face the "items" hanging from the shower head.

[Katsunami]

No, sorry, can't say I have. The only thing I ever did was to train myself to incorporate some whirlwind kicks of Tekken 3's Hwarang in my own repertoire, but they were actual, real and useful moves. Tekken 3 was quite good at using real techniques for their fighters, and Hwarang especially so. (The one thing I hate in Tekken, which they drove to an extreme in T5, is technique chaining, or 'juggling': keeping an opponent in the air for an unlimited time, using kicks and punches.)

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Whereas I still read a lot, but am reading far less than I did.

But what about reading MobileRead posts? That counts as reading, right?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

But what about reading MobileRead posts? That counts as reading, right?

I had the sense we were talking about books rather than day-to-day browsing, chatting and instant messaging -- all of which I think of as occupying the region between writing and speech.

Still, my casual involvement here doesn't touch the amount of time I used to spend reading books when I was younger.

Edit: In my case, the change has to do with having to read for six to eight hours a day professionally. At some point, you have to conserve your eyesight.

[Rizla]

Chaos is on the increase and the internet is (a very big) part of it.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by dki

I hoped so, but now I wonder. There's just so much available at all times that I get bogged down just trying to make a choice. Back in the day there were other forms of entertainment as movies, theater, pub, clubs, libraries, meeting friend for lunch or dinner, or going shopping (ach, the bookstores of old), but they all required you to do more that just pick up your laptop, TV remote or Xbox. Now it's all at your fingertips, and I think that part of my problem with not being able to focus reading is due to that. My grandparents and parents did not have that problem, they all read well into ripe old age. I spend more time looking for the books than reading them, simply because I can do it from my home. I don't have to go anywhere, and I like browsing with a cup of coffee in my den, so there. Reading became secondary. My TBR list reached epic proportions. I hate starting on any series, because they just rum loo long, and I cannot keep interest in them throughout all 59 (or so) parts. Back in a day I loved series, the longer the better.

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. Your grandparents may be heavy readers, but that doesn't mean that everyone's grandparents are heavy readers. You have to look at a wide sample, and that's what this article doesn't do. The article gives the impression that everyone used to read Proust, and then stopped because of the internet. The internet has only been widely available to the public for about 20 years, have people really become less able to read over those 20 years? My reading has increased considerably since I got an e-reader. Of course, that's anectodal as well, it would be a mistake to attempt to apply that to everyone.

There is a tendency to assume that in the past, because modern entertainments weren't available, people used to just read and read and read and read. But there was plenty of things to do besides reading. People used to be much more inclined to participate in sports rather than watching them. And when they did watch, they watched them in person instead of on their couches. Even in books, the "bookworm" character who spends all of his time reading has been looked at with derision. Take Don Quixote for example, gone mad with stories of knights in shining armor.

You say you have difficulty with reading series, but if that was the result of the internet and other entertainment media, we would see series diminishing. Instead, series are very popular. Some people complain about how popular series are, about people being less willing to read a stand-alone book. Look at the Game of Thrones series. The books are doorstoppers, but they are quite popular. If the internet was keeping people from reading longer books, why is this series so popular?

So the bottom line is that I have a feeling that all these "sound bites" all these short articles, all that "just to the point" information I seek is changing the way I look at the novels. The whole point of a novel is that it is not "just to the point". And I am not sure I can tolerate this, never mind enjoy it for hours on end as I used too. Also, I find that I am less likely to go to the movies, or even watch a movie on TV. I simply cannot stay interested in a movie for 2 hours. Even with the pop-corn and all. Now it's TV series. I hope I can retain that 45 minute attention span I still kind of have.

Do people really scan articles online more than they do articles in the newspaper? There are also plenty of movies that are more than two hours long. The Lord of the Rings movies are over three hours each, the latest Hobbit movie was 2 hours 41 minutes. If people in general are becoming unable to watch movies that last more than two hours, the movie studios haven't gotten the word.

That I have to disagree with. This is anecdotal evidence. I have a pretty high level of aggression (just ask my co-workers or DH) and I would never play a shooter. Just bores me to tears. I want to take a nap in the middle of a fight. To be honest, I rarely play any other kind of a games anymore - see short attention span explanation above, but I used to. Shooters - never. There's just nothing like a real-life fight, that's all. No virtual bloodbath can compete. So I think that people with a high level of aggression vent in real life. But YMMV.

No one is saying that all people who have high levels of aggression play violent video games. Thus, just because you don't doesn't demonstrate anything.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. Your grandparents may be heavy readers, but that doesn't mean that everyone's grandparents are heavy readers. You have to look at a wide sample, and that's what this article doesn't do. The article gives the impression that everyone used to read Proust, and then stopped because of the internet. The internet has only been widely available to the public for about 20 years, have people really become less able to read over those 20 years? My reading has increased considerably since I got an e-reader. Of course, that's anectodal as well, it would be a mistake to attempt to apply that to everyone.

There is a tendency to assume that in the past, because modern entertainments weren't available, people used to just read and read and read and read. But there was plenty of things to do besides reading. People used to be much more inclined to participate in sports rather than watching them. And when they did watch, they watched them in person instead of on their couches. Even in books, the "bookworm" character who spends all of his time reading has been looked at with derision. Take Don Quixote for example, gone mad with stories of knights in shining armor.

My parents/grandparents are/were heavy readers, not that that says anything about the rest of the world.

A fairly modern example though is the Canadian North in the late 90's till 2004-5

Most communities did not have cable/satellite TV or internet connections 2004-5. The education levels were low, but the reading population was high. Aboriginal people told me they learned English so they could read books.

Miners, loggers, support workers in camps, were in general poorly educated. There was no personal entertainment available except what you brought with you especially before the advent of the DVD. People with a grade 3 education were not reading Proust so much I am sure, but they were reading Clavell, Michener, Uris etc. and still do.

Libraries and bookstores were few and far between, still are, but libraries that are jumping off points for camp workers such as Dawson City have special sections, where camp workers can get books without due dates or fines or limits on the number borrowed. In Dawson city this section is bigger than the mainstream library. I actually asked the librarian why there were so many books and she explained that was the reason. Haines Junction, Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet have similar for those living in remote communities. Apparently even the Edmonton and Yellowknife libraries have/had a similar arrangement for camp workers.

While I am sure you are correct that many people chose games, social events etc. over reading, those options were not as readily available in my grandparents time as today.

They, like much of the working class in the past, relied heavily on manual labour to make a living. Working from dawn to dusk as farmers, road builders, train track layers etc. probably didn't make them want to play hockey or football in their rare leisure hours. They couldn't afford theatres or plays or the opera, which is a good thing as they would have had to get out the old horse and ride 60 miles to get to one. (good thing for the old horse anyway) The did enjoy a good game of cribbage though.

Helen