I wonder if you can check how many of those who have read this article have clicked on the many links in it and returned to where they departed from. [amusedface emoji].
With the rules I have set for myself - no cell phone (let alone 'smart' phone), no internet at home (I am not now at home) - when I am at home reading, I do 'meander' in the way here described, but there are differences. The 'world' is not at my fingertips, rather it is scattered in piles throughout the house in my very disorganized 'library' -cluttered, yes, but fairly well retrievable via the mental map of my hippocampus. It takes some physical exertion then, digging even, to do the looking up. That puts a check upon the number of (and relevance of) tangents taken, so that I prioritize what for which I am going to get up, go upstairs or downstairs, and look up. Things stay more focused this way, even if to an outsider it looks like total chaos.
My new favourite genre is "follow D. Graham Burnett doing stuff." First there was the New Yorker article where we got to read about him and his friends looking at art, now we get to read about him reading an empty, jargon filled academic book, which is no doubt more enlightening than reading the book itself. What will be next?
Wow, what a great article - fantastic self awareness on how reading and consuming media occurs in the 21st century.
I too have had the same experience where I start reading a book and soon get lost down rabbit holes - reading one paragraph and then going on the internet to explore that further. It makes reading a book frustrating at times because I feel the urge to verify or check something on my phone, and i'm never sure if its true or not
It is maddening as well, to have multiple and contradictory perspectives brought up to me - each with their own kernel of truth seeded within them.
I have been grappling with this problem for a few years myself, and assumed it was just a "me" problem, when it is infact a larger-scale societal problem.
The way we consume information and engage with text has fundamentally changed in the 21st century - and there's no getting around that. I've read people decrying this on this blog before, but I'm sure there's some benefits and cons to what came before this as well
My experience reading this article was humorously mirrored by the description of reading that book.
Though I was flicking between different tabs, remembering that I was reading/thinking about something else. Then, coming back here, remembering there was some interesting things here. Also, looking up a handful of the same references mentioned in this very article.
Geez, DBurn, this is some whizbang intellectualizing here! If it weren’t for your esteemed pedigree, why I’d almost think a few of these “lines” was galloped by a white horse. How else could one digest three chapters and an intro in 45 minutes? Plus look up a bunch of fancy words on the subject with the object, all whilst’ve supposedly making notes of deep truths and uncanny parallels? The literal-as-metaphor dialogic that resonates between one as reader and living being is a rich vein for such auto-epistemological explorations. At least, that’s what the smartest person I knowd, Kenny, said to write in the comments. Regards, sir.
glad to see some deep thinking mixed up in the satire. although i cannot account for anyone's attention but my own (& even that, not continuously), i do think some generalizations can be made.
I wonder if you can check how many of those who have read this article have clicked on the many links in it and returned to where they departed from. [amusedface emoji].
With the rules I have set for myself - no cell phone (let alone 'smart' phone), no internet at home (I am not now at home) - when I am at home reading, I do 'meander' in the way here described, but there are differences. The 'world' is not at my fingertips, rather it is scattered in piles throughout the house in my very disorganized 'library' -cluttered, yes, but fairly well retrievable via the mental map of my hippocampus. It takes some physical exertion then, digging even, to do the looking up. That puts a check upon the number of (and relevance of) tangents taken, so that I prioritize what for which I am going to get up, go upstairs or downstairs, and look up. Things stay more focused this way, even if to an outsider it looks like total chaos.
My new favourite genre is "follow D. Graham Burnett doing stuff." First there was the New Yorker article where we got to read about him and his friends looking at art, now we get to read about him reading an empty, jargon filled academic book, which is no doubt more enlightening than reading the book itself. What will be next?
Wow, what a great article - fantastic self awareness on how reading and consuming media occurs in the 21st century.
I too have had the same experience where I start reading a book and soon get lost down rabbit holes - reading one paragraph and then going on the internet to explore that further. It makes reading a book frustrating at times because I feel the urge to verify or check something on my phone, and i'm never sure if its true or not
It is maddening as well, to have multiple and contradictory perspectives brought up to me - each with their own kernel of truth seeded within them.
I have been grappling with this problem for a few years myself, and assumed it was just a "me" problem, when it is infact a larger-scale societal problem.
The way we consume information and engage with text has fundamentally changed in the 21st century - and there's no getting around that. I've read people decrying this on this blog before, but I'm sure there's some benefits and cons to what came before this as well
My experience reading this article was humorously mirrored by the description of reading that book.
Though I was flicking between different tabs, remembering that I was reading/thinking about something else. Then, coming back here, remembering there was some interesting things here. Also, looking up a handful of the same references mentioned in this very article.
It took me an hour to finish reading it.
This just made me want someone to write a moment-by-moment auto-ethnography of one of my texts.
Geez, DBurn, this is some whizbang intellectualizing here! If it weren’t for your esteemed pedigree, why I’d almost think a few of these “lines” was galloped by a white horse. How else could one digest three chapters and an intro in 45 minutes? Plus look up a bunch of fancy words on the subject with the object, all whilst’ve supposedly making notes of deep truths and uncanny parallels? The literal-as-metaphor dialogic that resonates between one as reader and living being is a rich vein for such auto-epistemological explorations. At least, that’s what the smartest person I knowd, Kenny, said to write in the comments. Regards, sir.
The chain-of-thought section is Nicholson Baker-level great and I would read a whole book of that. Or rather, I'd rather read that than a whole book.
glad to see some deep thinking mixed up in the satire. although i cannot account for anyone's attention but my own (& even that, not continuously), i do think some generalizations can be made.