back
21 comments
I thought I'd throw in a mention of a book on a similar topic, "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains", a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2011:

http://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=16

If I had to summarize a few takeaways:

* Books are read in a linear fashion. Following a simple linear path helps us focus our attention on the content in a book and digest it. Reading cultivates habits of focusing and thinking deeply about a single topic.

* The internet is full of rich sources of information but is also full of distractions. People browsing the web simultaneously digest content and make decisions about how to navigate through that content, which distracts from the ability to absorb the content and form associations with it. Compared to book reading, web browsing also encourages quick-pleasure-seeking rather than focused, intentional, sustained attention that books help cultivate.

> In the late 20th century, however, there was a sustained assault from within the profession of literary studies on the very idea of common humanity

I'm surprised someone at New Statesman admits this. Very often I feel that the very purpose of modern literary studies is to establish "credentials" that allow the holder to shut down discussion of books by using jargon and appeal to authority. In those disciplines, there is very little effort applied to improve the actual understanding of literature. Constructs, constructs, constructs. In the end, you end up spending most of your time dealing with linguistic constructs of the field itself and very little time thinking about the ideas of whatever author you study.

Noam Chomsky commented on this when speaking about post-structuralism. He noted that it's mostly an attempt to present "scientific" front for something that is inherently not a scientific field.

Of course, the response from the field was that he just doesn't understand what they're doing. Just like everyone else outside of the field.

I devoted a several years to studying continental / post-structuralist philosophy (Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Butler, Irigary, et al), and while I can't claim any authoritative knowledge I'd say I've at least done my homework, and I have to agree with Chomsky.

Post-structuralism essentially begins from the feeling that the rigor of modernism/structuralism is stuffy and oppressive. Post-structuralism's main project, then, is to deny the kind of stuffy rigor typical of the sciences any privileged position - that is, to deny that it is more correct than any other type of analysis. This is done through a variety of means, but you can find a good summary in [1]. The works in this area employ a dauntingly huge set of concepts that often serve as a barrier to entry and mystifier for outsiders. Science/mathematics is typically only donned to give a philosophers work an intimidating edifice to the non-mathematically inclined - see Badiou for a great example of this with set/category theory. Overall, it's a questionable project that seems to contribute little - see [2] for a good summary of this.

Overall, skip it if you can.

[1]: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf [2]: https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/SchwartzmanMar'00.pdf

I'm a better person for reading the books of Terry Pratchett, it was many years after I started reading them that I realised they have an implicit morality running through the whole series.

Honestly I don't know if I want to read his last as that has an air of finality to it.

I couldn't agree more with your statement. Pratchett was the best for me.
Reading a good book allows you to experience years of someone's life in just a few hours.
> Conversation is the key: the problem with “academic” literary analysis is that too often it sounds like talking at the reader or, worse, talking down to him or her. And the style is all too frequently that of the monologue.

You don't say...

Um, this article is bad. It takes a very long time to say not very much. I'm still not sure what the point is. I think that this article falls into the morass of 20th century literary/critical intellectualism whose primary occupation is navel gazing and recursive commentary based off of the original navel gazing. It's endless writing for the sake of name dropping.

Here is a good summary of this article: "Montaigne himself wrote a wonderful essay suggesting that the three best things in life are friendship, sex and reading, and the best of the three is reading. Your friend may die, your sexual partner may betray you, but literature is always there."

I fancy a good book quite frequently, myself-- books can allow themselves to be complicated or un-understandable and have niche appeal. That being said, this article seems to be contributing a bit to the "cult of books" which has become a bit more prominent in the recent years. Books aren't magical, and they don't always contain better information than other media. The main strength of books is their ability to go into depth and exist a long time.

Am I a better human being for reading a bunch of books? Probably, but the real self improvement comes from information transfer independent of source, not "books" intrinsically. Reading books just happens to be the fastest and densest information transfer from external world to brain, for me.

I think you miss the major points of the article. It is long if it is judged by the "standard" length of an article in a blogging era, and thus shorter attention spans of readers. It is not that long if one considers that the author was trying a topic that is hard to illuminate.

That doesn't mean it is a well-written article. Although he made his points clear, the writing could be better. I have read better articles on similar topics.

I think writing is a universal skill in terms that good writing can be applied to both literatures and technical books. The ways to convey one's points are usually quite different based on the topics. An imaginary example, an extreme one, is to write a novel in a way like writing a book on a programming language. Similarly, as readers, we can't expect the same reading experiences on Madame Bovary and Gang of Four.

> thus shorter attention spans of readers

Is there any actual evidence of this, or is it another O Tempora, O Mores rant?

You're not sure what the point is, but you still believe you can present a good summary of it? One might suggest that if you know you don't understand something, the odds of being able to present a good summary are slim. There's more to summarising something than removing words.

On the plus side, kudos for saying "summary" rather than tldr.

I was saying that the author didn't do a good job of being clear (which is often by design in these sorts of articles-- clear language is seen as anti-artful) so I tried to assemble a summary of what he's actually saying on my own.
Well, I read the same article and in my opinion you've missed an awful lot. Your summary picks out one small aspect, and present that as the whole point. It's not a scientific paper that can have the finding compressed into an abstract (or as the hipsters say now, a "tldr"). It's a discussion; it's meant to engage you, and trying to pick out a single point as the summary is like saying the point of hiking is to travel from A to B.

It even criticises inaccessible literary analysis:

"...the problem with “academic” literary analysis is that too often it sounds like talking at the reader or, worse, talking down to him or her."

So is it massively lacking in self-awareness, if it suffers this problem itself? I didn't find it at all difficult to read, but then English is my first language so that will always be an advantage I have in reading English.

I think this writing is clear, but you're trying to read it like a mathematical derivation or the write-up of an experiment.

Agree on the "bad", the essay is written in a sophomoric style; however, it does have some good ideas. The Anna Karenina example is a good one, demonstrating how, sometimes, "Theory" obscures the pleasures that can be obtained from reading.

If you like to read about reading, I would very much recommend Anne Fadiman's Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader.

What exactly is a "better human being" ?
I always find this sort of relativistic 'define good' comment somewhat irritating and pedantic - yes, we can debate the exact outlines of 'better' somewhat, but the gist of it is obvious.

In this case, reading a well-written novel is the fastest way to feel the same things as a person from a background different than your own, in a situation different from your own - and therefore increase both your empathy and your understanding of the human condition. What you do with that is up to you, but you'll have a hard time persuading most people that more understanding of others outside yourself isn't 'better'.

Good question! Using "better" for complex things without explicitly labeling the measurement axes is fluff (https://xkcd.com/833/).
Humanities is pretty much the embodiment of something that we could term subjective, no?

But having said that "better human being" was a term that came out of the age of enlightenment - intellectual, moral and physical growth were considered key. [1]

Hence books - with their ability to contribute on the moral and intellectual fronts - were always considered paramount.

Though with the fracturing of medial channels, books are just part of an ever larger mix. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitas#Revival_in_18th_and_...

Perhaps the authors mean to suggest that the consumption of other perspectives allows one to better empathize with others, and in so doing, become better-equipped to reduce their suffering.
"More experienced"