The foundation of Nicholas Carr’s
argument in chapter 5 of The Shallows
is the assumption that the internet is a fundamental detriment to the reading
process. Carr seems to suggest that the experience of consuming information on
the internet is less valuable because of its tendency to be more concise and enable
readers to jump between texts more easily than if they had to go look for a
book in the non-virtual world. However, I disagree with Carr. I think that the
same facets of the mediated reading experience that Carr denounces are
beneficial to readers’ intelligence. While the internet should not be relied on
as the sole source of information, the wealth of resources available via the
web should not be discounted simply because Carr denotes them as “of the most
general nature.”
Carr’s biggest problem with the
internet seems to be that it is “different” from reading a book in print. On
page 91, he argues that the physical action of scrolling instead of clicking is
harming our ability to engage with reading in a “multi-sensory” way. He
supports the importance of “the crucial link between the sensory-motor
experience of the materiality” that accompanies holding a book in your hand.
However, what Carr is failing to recognize is that the internet has the
capacity to engage our senses in unprecedented ways. A book can only offer us
the visual stimulation of moving our eyes across the page and the motor stimulation
of turning its pages. We can read about a subject on the internet, but also have
the opportunity to listen to an interview clip of an expert speaking on that
subject, or watch a video of the topic in question in action. The internet can
engage us in the same ways as books, but has the potential to reach nearly
every one of our senses in addition.
While Carr reveres the printed text
as the antithesis to the diversions that the online world can offer readers, books
are not immune to the author’s dreaded fragmentation. Carr suggests that
aspects of the internet experience such as hyperlinks and texts’ searchable
qualities discourage readers from focusing on one text for very long. He frames
this occurrence as a negative side effect of the internet, but I don’t think it
is negative at all. The internet enables users to choose the information that
is most relevant to their needs and guides them to their destination as well as
sites that they may not have otherwise been likely to discover. While I do
appreciate the value of following an author’s argument through its entire
trajectory, I think it is an inefficient use of resources to read each book
that you pick up from cover to cover. The internet not only enables readers to
more easily access the specific information they need, but also promotes
diversity of information by encouraging users to go to visit any number of websites.
Carr argues that “the Net further fragments content and disrupts concentration,”
but I think that it really just allows us more autonomy over what we are
devoting our attention to.
Carr is adamant that the internet is
negatively impacting our ability to read and concentrate. While I am not proposing
that all of our information should be consumed via the internet, I think that
he is dismissing the other perspective without acknowledging any of its
benefits. Further, I think that Carr is ignoring the potential for the internet
and traditional texts to successfully coexist. While I know that the internet
is damaging the print industry, many (most?) people still recognize the value
of having books in print. In terms of research and progress, I think that the
internet enables us to advance more quickly because information is readily
available to the public. The legwork that comprises the primary differences
between virtual and print reading is irrelevant to the quality of reading
itself, and I think that Carr is not acknowledging this viewpoint.
I think your arguments against Carr's belief that reading from the print medium is a more beneficial experience to readers than the online equivalent are totally valid. It's interesting how Carr says that "we're most certainly reading more words today than we did twenty years ago, but we're devoting much less time to reading words printed on paper." The fact that we are reading so much online instead of in print should not necessarily be a bad thing. I think that our reading habits have definitely been altered due to the integration of all the different media--video, audio, photos--that go along with many text-based sites on the internet nowadays. But like Carr said, these other media and hyperlinks that are often included within a typical text article act as the internet's version of footnotes, allowing us to explore further whatever it is we are researching in a multitude of various formats in an efficient manner. Today I think that our method of reading has abandoned the tendency of deep-reading from the past. Maybe this mentality has been constructed as a result of the truncated, short-burst type of way that we navigate content on the internet today, but I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. I think that because the internet has become "our typewriter and our printing press, our map and our clock, our calculator and our telephone, our post office and our library, our radio and our TV" it only makes sense that we utilize the internet to do all of these functions, occasionally simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really well thought out post. I thought it elaborated on a lot of different points and tending to both sides of the topic. Before I read this, I thought the internet was harming my ability to deep read and thought for a little that maybe I should spend less time on the internet. However, this is just what society has come to. The internet is never going to go away so we should all learn to how work wisely with it. Finding a balance is extremely important. For instance, I think a balance between reading print books sometimes and still using the internet as a great resource would be a good idea. I find that people should not just take one side. For instance, a person should not completely blow off the internet and just read books, but I also don't think a person should just use the internet. It was really shocking to read in The Shallows about the one person who said books were pointless now because we have the internet. I don't think that's a good idea to adopt because there is still value in written books. I still love reading leisure books for my own benefit. It is nice to settle down at night and read a book before bed. I find it relaxing and peaceful because my eyes are not glued to the computer or cell phone screen. Like you said, I understand print journalism is dwindling which makes me sad because I love print newspapers (Go Grizzly!) However, the internet is flourishing and exposing us to so many different things. Instead of hating on what the internet has done, we should learn to use it to our advantage but not have it take over completely.
ReplyDelete