I’m not sure the argument that a decline in reading necessarily points to a decline in civilization really holds water. Europe became extraordinarily literate by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, yet that period also gave us nationalism, imperialism, two world wars, fascism, and some of the worst atrocities in modern history. Literacy and deep reading are obviously valuable, but history doesn’t seem to support a simple equation of more reading with a wiser or more humane society.
And how much does long-form reading really tell us on its own? Reading Fifty Shades of Grey or a John Grisham novel is still long-form reading, but the format itself doesn’t magically make the content profound.
Besides, I probably read more words now than I ever have. I read all day on my phone. It’s almost obscene how much short-form content I imbibe. What we’re really going through is a change in how we consume information, from books and print to digital media. The more important question seems to be the quality of the content, not the vessel it arrives in. If anything, good content has never been easier to access. Maybe quality, discernment, and depth of engagement should be the focus rather than modality itself. But I get it you have a provocative title to engage users on clicking your content. Cheers
I just wanted to say, as a former reddit dweller, I've gotten overly-used to argumentative debates and wanted to get away from that. Then, while I like the more considerate tone of Substack, I've grown weary of the other pendulum swing where I find a lot of LitStack to contain a lot of glad-handing and obsequious cheerleading of friends (an understandable impulse among friends, but can get tedious when I'm just a reader outside of the scene). Far too many Substack notes/comments that carry an unwelcome air of LinkedIn.
So with that preamble, I just wanted to say this was a really refreshing piece that dissects a friend's work. It's a spirited counter-argument to Marriot's book that doesn't bear the classic, now-banal Internet snark. This review/dissection broadened the questions posed by the book/original substack article. Even myself, who bemoans daily the constant reels and TikToks I see from others on my commute, have had niggling questions with Marriot's points (my go-to being "didn't the printing press kinda set off a bunch of religious wars and dodgy pamphlets?” lol). This kind of good-faith critique and rejoinder is what I've been craving and expected from Substack. I welcome more of it around these LitStack corners.
I’m reminded of the line from Max Beerbohm: “Formerly the illiterate could not read.”
What I find surprising is how many people refuse to engage with any books before, say, Jane Austen. I would attribute much of that to the abandonment of the King James Version and the classics.
I’m hopeful that the onslaught of AI will encourage a larger, more consciously literary minority.
I am concerned about reduced reading in terms of its effect on the ability to of people to write and even speak, using the richness of language. My family, including my children and grandchildren are readers, but I am starting to see more use of incorrect words to describe things, and in business, so many people who have poor writing skills including vocabulary, grammar and spelling. Good communication requires that the transmitter and receivers of information are on the same 'page'. Many problems in the word can be caused by poor communication and misunderstandings.
However I also note that we and our cultures and expression change. From cave drawing to days that only the clergy and intellectuals could read and write, and could in fact easily control the messages, to now the mass adoption of the use of AI. If we are losing skills including the ability to ask the right questions and understand the answers, AI may not be a lot of help. Could this lead us full circle to where reading, writing and effective communication become the tools of an enlightened class, who represent a small subset of society. I wonder what that would look like, especially given how disinformation is also becoming rife everywhere you look.
The non-linear thinking anecdote is fascinating. My feeling is that kind of thinking is associated with mental illness and not very helpful in day-to-day life. Oh well, maybe the robots will take care of day-to-day life and mankind will end up as a bunch of psychotic geniuses.
My boring opinion is that if the media tells people to read, they'll read, and the disaster will be averted. Americans are a stupid people by and large, they basically do whatever they're told.
I’m not sure the argument that a decline in reading necessarily points to a decline in civilization really holds water. Europe became extraordinarily literate by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, yet that period also gave us nationalism, imperialism, two world wars, fascism, and some of the worst atrocities in modern history. Literacy and deep reading are obviously valuable, but history doesn’t seem to support a simple equation of more reading with a wiser or more humane society.
And how much does long-form reading really tell us on its own? Reading Fifty Shades of Grey or a John Grisham novel is still long-form reading, but the format itself doesn’t magically make the content profound.
Besides, I probably read more words now than I ever have. I read all day on my phone. It’s almost obscene how much short-form content I imbibe. What we’re really going through is a change in how we consume information, from books and print to digital media. The more important question seems to be the quality of the content, not the vessel it arrives in. If anything, good content has never been easier to access. Maybe quality, discernment, and depth of engagement should be the focus rather than modality itself. But I get it you have a provocative title to engage users on clicking your content. Cheers
I just wanted to say, as a former reddit dweller, I've gotten overly-used to argumentative debates and wanted to get away from that. Then, while I like the more considerate tone of Substack, I've grown weary of the other pendulum swing where I find a lot of LitStack to contain a lot of glad-handing and obsequious cheerleading of friends (an understandable impulse among friends, but can get tedious when I'm just a reader outside of the scene). Far too many Substack notes/comments that carry an unwelcome air of LinkedIn.
So with that preamble, I just wanted to say this was a really refreshing piece that dissects a friend's work. It's a spirited counter-argument to Marriot's book that doesn't bear the classic, now-banal Internet snark. This review/dissection broadened the questions posed by the book/original substack article. Even myself, who bemoans daily the constant reels and TikToks I see from others on my commute, have had niggling questions with Marriot's points (my go-to being "didn't the printing press kinda set off a bunch of religious wars and dodgy pamphlets?” lol). This kind of good-faith critique and rejoinder is what I've been craving and expected from Substack. I welcome more of it around these LitStack corners.
A well-balanced counter argument.
I’m reminded of the line from Max Beerbohm: “Formerly the illiterate could not read.”
What I find surprising is how many people refuse to engage with any books before, say, Jane Austen. I would attribute much of that to the abandonment of the King James Version and the classics.
I’m hopeful that the onslaught of AI will encourage a larger, more consciously literary minority.
I am concerned about reduced reading in terms of its effect on the ability to of people to write and even speak, using the richness of language. My family, including my children and grandchildren are readers, but I am starting to see more use of incorrect words to describe things, and in business, so many people who have poor writing skills including vocabulary, grammar and spelling. Good communication requires that the transmitter and receivers of information are on the same 'page'. Many problems in the word can be caused by poor communication and misunderstandings.
However I also note that we and our cultures and expression change. From cave drawing to days that only the clergy and intellectuals could read and write, and could in fact easily control the messages, to now the mass adoption of the use of AI. If we are losing skills including the ability to ask the right questions and understand the answers, AI may not be a lot of help. Could this lead us full circle to where reading, writing and effective communication become the tools of an enlightened class, who represent a small subset of society. I wonder what that would look like, especially given how disinformation is also becoming rife everywhere you look.
This is such a balanced and thorough counter-argument. Really enjoyed reading it.
Thank you for this really thoughtful and nuanced appraisal. Much to think about here.
The non-linear thinking anecdote is fascinating. My feeling is that kind of thinking is associated with mental illness and not very helpful in day-to-day life. Oh well, maybe the robots will take care of day-to-day life and mankind will end up as a bunch of psychotic geniuses.
My boring opinion is that if the media tells people to read, they'll read, and the disaster will be averted. Americans are a stupid people by and large, they basically do whatever they're told.
An important topic. I posted some thoughts about the effects of different kinds of media, here:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/70061.html