August 17, 2010
slow reading
If you're reading this article in print, chances are you'll only get through half of what I've written. And if you're reading this online, you might not even finish a fifth. At least, those are the two verdicts from a pair of recent research projects – respectively, the Poynter Institute's Eyetrack survey, and analysis by Jakob Nielsen – which both suggest that many of us no longer have the concentration to read articles through to their conclusion. The problem doesn't just stop there: academics report that we are becoming less attentive book-readers, too. Bath Spa University lecturer Greg Garrard recently revealed that he has had to shorten his students' reading list, while Keith Thomas, an Oxford historian, has written that he is bemused by junior colleagues who analyse sources with a search engine, instead of reading them in their entirety. So are we getting stupider? Is that what this is about? Sort of.more from Patrick Kingsley at The Guardian here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 05:24 AM | Permalink
Comments
Slow reading can be induced by offering the reader slow written texts. Or well written texts that reward her attentions.
Having remote control access to 80+ cable channels doesn't mean there is anything worth watching at a given moment. The local movie-plex offers more than a dozen films at a time yet rarely rewards a visit. Why should Barnes & Noble or the local library be any different?
Posted by: black dog barking | Aug 17, 2010 7:01:39 PM
black dog barking, I would agree with you except that determining what is worth time, from one's own POV, is more difficult if there's far too much competition for attention generally. A plethora of choices creates a nasty atmosphere in which one rushes through the good in order not to miss the better, so that the real pleasure of reading is vitiated.
People who opt not to finish non-compulsory reading, or to scan it rather than read it, are making a decision about the best use of their time. If they want the anxiety of speed-browsing and the near meaninglessness of spot-reading, it's still their time to misspend. And, people don't seem to go to the cineplex to choose among 12 bad films -- they seem to watch downloads at home while they catch up on paperwork, give themselves pedicures, and let their eyes roam for still more tasks to add on.
To seriously read what is life-changing, to enter mind, heart and soul into a truly great film, requires reflection and thought and the willingness to abandon oneself to a vast experience. When the craving to do that returns, the means will be there.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Aug 17, 2010 7:26:24 PM
That is really beautifully put, Elatia Harris.
Posted by: The Austere Chipmunk | Aug 17, 2010 10:37:30 PM
it may be a rational judgment that some books aren't worth reading completely through.
Posted by: roger | Aug 18, 2010 2:45:18 PM
Aw, thank you, Austere Chipmunk! roger, that's perfectly true. But not finishing a book because you chose it badly and refuse to commit a few more hours to making a proper job of reading it is different from scoping it out for prose style and talking points and then laying it aside. The one is a rational choice that I have made plenty of times. The other is reading a book like a particularly overwhelmed and backed-up book reviewer reads those in her towering stack.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Aug 18, 2010 3:48:34 PM
tl;dr
Posted by: Sagredo | Aug 18, 2010 9:50:20 PM
Post a comment