Why read in the age of AI?

some of the wrong reasons

The kind of reading that retains its worth in the age of AI is the kind that has no measurable ROI, no scalable metrics, no immediate market value of any kind. It is like life in that the point of it is the story itself, and the only way to “get” it is to dwell in it and let it change you.

It has nothing to offer, in other words, besides the communion of soul with soul. But if we can’t value that, what is anything else worth?

From Spencer Klaven at the Free Press. I am sure pieces like this are well intentioned, but they do not serve much purpose. Which of the people who think books are a waste of time will be persuaded by any of this? Who are we winning over with these vague expressions? It just screams “people like you don’t get it and never will”.

Why are scalable metrics and immediate market value our enemies? Isn’t that just picking an easy fight? If reading has nothing to offer other than the “communion of soul with soul” then how does it change us? Is this a spiritual process, somehow? To a great many people the answer to the final question here is perfectly obvious. They do, in fact, love their families, find nature profound, and get purpose in their work, without reading Middlemarch. They also suffer, find heartbreak, and slog it out in bad times. If they didn’t, literature wouldn’t have much to write about. As for the financial values that are presumably the target at the end, well—the article itself has made clear that they are proceeding apace just fine without books…

What is it, exactly, that we have to say to the people who think literature is irrelevant? If the crisis was as bad as we are told, shouldn’t literary people of all groups, be better at thinking this through properly?

One of the biggest problems literary culture faces is that many parts of the literary establishment too often aren’t able to make good enough arguments for the value of their subject.

You can read the whole piece here —

What Happens If No One Reads