Technology
Skeptical Voyeurism
Sorry Cormac McCarthy, I know everyone says you’re great but I just don’t buy it. I need to inquire for myself. If your books don’t got that “LOOK INSIDE!” feature I just won’t take the chance — and God forbid I leave my house and browse the bookstore; that would require me to put on my underwear, and my junk needs to shrunk. See what I just did for a rhyme?
Jabs and jokes aside, it’s interesting how the “Look Inside” feature points (inadvertently or not) to what’s most essential to the consumer/reader: the ‘judging a book by its cover’ cover; the marketing flourishes of blurbs/synopses on the back cover and/or inside flap; and the first 5 or so pages of text. (I’m not making any argument, for an arbitrary excerpt at pg. 214 would be fairly inapplicable. This ain’t exquisite corpse bitch.)
Perhaps the writer’s job is inextricably slash irrevocably also the publisher’s/vendor’s job as well: to capture, convince, and compel the reader by pg. 5. It’s like a blind date: you can tell by the first 5 sips of that gin n’ tonic if ur gonna fuck. For those novelists out there (for I am not), how cognizant are you of your reader’s fickle ADD constraints? Do you expect someone to bear through the first 50 pages on “good faith,” or do you throw your best punches at the start? Maybe the best plan is to do it throughout the entire book, but hey, we can’t all be idealists. Is a short story simply the beginning of a novel that is never finished? Is Cormac McCarthy basically a version of Ralph Lauren without the cologne? What drives a writer: ego, love, or pain? If one answers a rhetorical question in the comment section, how closer are they to infinity? Who’s your daddy?
Tags: amazon look inside, novel writing
i don’t care what anyone says, i read the road and loved every fucking page of it – the same was true for blood meridian
i honestly think if you’re not ‘cognizant of the reader’s fickle ADD constraints’ and you’re trying to be a ‘novelist’ you’re a damn fool
my daddy is carl sagan, probably
i don’t care what anyone says, i read the road and loved every fucking page of it – the same was true for blood meridian
i honestly think if you’re not ‘cognizant of the reader’s fickle ADD constraints’ and you’re trying to be a ‘novelist’ you’re a damn fool
my daddy is carl sagan, probably
Five pages… Seriously? If you’re only willing to give something 5 pgs to impress you, you and your ADHD should stop reading altogether and go be a club kid or something. I mean obviously there will be some books you just have a strong negative reaction to, or else are so poorly written you instantly want out, but assuming a book is even reasonably competent/middling, it deserves much more time, energy and attention than you’re talking about giving it.
Great books–especially books that break new aesthetic/stylistic ground–have to teach you how to read them, and that takes time. To answer just one of the questions you asked, YES, you need to give a book at least 50 pages–enough time to complete a full movement, or several, and really engage you in its world–before making any kind of judgment on it. If you bail any earlier, you need to understand that the problem is probably with you and not with the book. You need to be able to say “I just couldn’t get into it,” or “I didn’t have the patience,” or “maybe some other time.” That’s a very different judgment than “this book failed to impress me.”
You’re also assuming a world where books stay flat and consistent throughout, in terms of style, tone, and design. Ulysses, for example, starts relatively tame because Joyce isn’t going to throw the harder stuff at you until he’s let you spend some time in the shallow end getting used to the water. And re the example at hand- Blood Meridian is amazing from the get-go, in my opinion, but it really takes flight in Ch 4, which to my mind is one of the finer passages of English prose written in the past century, and/or ever.
Five pages… Seriously? If you’re only willing to give something 5 pgs to impress you, you and your ADHD should stop reading altogether and go be a club kid or something. I mean obviously there will be some books you just have a strong negative reaction to, or else are so poorly written you instantly want out, but assuming a book is even reasonably competent/middling, it deserves much more time, energy and attention than you’re talking about giving it.
Great books–especially books that break new aesthetic/stylistic ground–have to teach you how to read them, and that takes time. To answer just one of the questions you asked, YES, you need to give a book at least 50 pages–enough time to complete a full movement, or several, and really engage you in its world–before making any kind of judgment on it. If you bail any earlier, you need to understand that the problem is probably with you and not with the book. You need to be able to say “I just couldn’t get into it,” or “I didn’t have the patience,” or “maybe some other time.” That’s a very different judgment than “this book failed to impress me.”
You’re also assuming a world where books stay flat and consistent throughout, in terms of style, tone, and design. Ulysses, for example, starts relatively tame because Joyce isn’t going to throw the harder stuff at you until he’s let you spend some time in the shallow end getting used to the water. And re the example at hand- Blood Meridian is amazing from the get-go, in my opinion, but it really takes flight in Ch 4, which to my mind is one of the finer passages of English prose written in the past century, and/or ever.
I havent read Cormac, but I am always aware that you gotta grab the reader at the beginning. Its doesnt have to be all flash bang wallop, like Justin says, but even with Ulysses from page one the prose throws you right in there and you know if you’re going to like the rest of the book or not. But me, I always like to start with a bang. I dont think its like a cynical thing – ‘OK, better write those catchy first pages now…” but its more that’s what I want out of a book I read. I know within the first page if I’m going to carry on with a book. Shit, life’s too short, and I’m never going to fit in all of the books I want to read, so I dont have time to waste wading through a so-so book.
Totally off topic, I liked American Psycho a lot (I thought about this, because American Psycho is a book where nothing much happens for the first 50-60 pages), but I just read a book called “The Demon” by Hubert Selby jr which was basically American Psycho, but written in 1974, and a much better book. Better written, better characters, just better all around. I still like A.P., but it just got nudged out of that special place in my heart where it used to reside….
I havent read Cormac, but I am always aware that you gotta grab the reader at the beginning. Its doesnt have to be all flash bang wallop, like Justin says, but even with Ulysses from page one the prose throws you right in there and you know if you’re going to like the rest of the book or not. But me, I always like to start with a bang. I dont think its like a cynical thing – ‘OK, better write those catchy first pages now…” but its more that’s what I want out of a book I read. I know within the first page if I’m going to carry on with a book. Shit, life’s too short, and I’m never going to fit in all of the books I want to read, so I dont have time to waste wading through a so-so book.
Totally off topic, I liked American Psycho a lot (I thought about this, because American Psycho is a book where nothing much happens for the first 50-60 pages), but I just read a book called “The Demon” by Hubert Selby jr which was basically American Psycho, but written in 1974, and a much better book. Better written, better characters, just better all around. I still like A.P., but it just got nudged out of that special place in my heart where it used to reside….
yah justin, i think i’m a bad person or something…
yah justin, i think i’m a bad person or something…
Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
And then think about what that does to literature.
Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
And then think about what that does to literature.
i agree with you, justin, wholeheartedly. still though, i feel there is something engaging about reading a text that is in fact ‘teaching you how to read it’ – i feel like that with portrait of the artist (if we’re going to talk joyce), the first line of which slays me to this day, having resided heavily in my consciousness since first reading it when i was 14 or so.
“Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo…”
i really feel like that first line teaches you how to read the entire book; it’s magical, strange and new, but it knows what it is and so does the rest of the novel.
at the same time, just for the sake of argument, television and the internet have undoubtedly warped our entire society’s perception of time – especially, i think, my generation (i’m 24) – and i feel like work that does not attempt to meet the reader somewhere in the middle (and i do mean readers, not writers) is probably doomed to failure in the long run. i think cormac mccarthy is a great example of this: a writer who understands the value of art and entertainment; and is able to deliver both without losing either.
i agree with you, justin, wholeheartedly. still though, i feel there is something engaging about reading a text that is in fact ‘teaching you how to read it’ – i feel like that with portrait of the artist (if we’re going to talk joyce), the first line of which slays me to this day, having resided heavily in my consciousness since first reading it when i was 14 or so.
“Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo…”
i really feel like that first line teaches you how to read the entire book; it’s magical, strange and new, but it knows what it is and so does the rest of the novel.
at the same time, just for the sake of argument, television and the internet have undoubtedly warped our entire society’s perception of time – especially, i think, my generation (i’m 24) – and i feel like work that does not attempt to meet the reader somewhere in the middle (and i do mean readers, not writers) is probably doomed to failure in the long run. i think cormac mccarthy is a great example of this: a writer who understands the value of art and entertainment; and is able to deliver both without losing either.
Brad- you know I like you- but Google isn’t making us stupid, The Atlantic is. That magazine displays the worst pseudo-serious hyperbolic hysterical neo-con shit out there. It should be ashamed of itself.
But- I try to give books time. 50 pages in and you don’t like it, put it down though maybe (unless you are talking a really long book, than it’s more like 150 pages…war and peace, anna karenina, so on). Lots of books out there.
My daddy is a former piano teacher and french professor who lives in Vienna and writes arrangements of Shaker songs (they were written with no harmony as harmony was considered decadenyt, to harmonizes them) and Negro spirituals. He’s my favorite person in the world alongside my sons.
Brad- you know I like you- but Google isn’t making us stupid, The Atlantic is. That magazine displays the worst pseudo-serious hyperbolic hysterical neo-con shit out there. It should be ashamed of itself.
But- I try to give books time. 50 pages in and you don’t like it, put it down though maybe (unless you are talking a really long book, than it’s more like 150 pages…war and peace, anna karenina, so on). Lots of books out there.
My daddy is a former piano teacher and french professor who lives in Vienna and writes arrangements of Shaker songs (they were written with no harmony as harmony was considered decadenyt, to harmonizes them) and Negro spirituals. He’s my favorite person in the world alongside my sons.
whoa- typos. the coffee is doing something wierd to my my typing skills.
whoa- typos. the coffee is doing something wierd to my my typing skills.
i am still trying to figure out what the big deal about cormac mccarthy is, but i havent given up trying yet
i am still trying to figure out what the big deal about cormac mccarthy is, but i havent given up trying yet
the big deal is that he’s awesome
the big deal is that he’s awesome
i ‘randomly’ picked mccarthy; the post wasn’t really about him, as much as amazon’s look inside.
i ‘randomly’ picked mccarthy; the post wasn’t really about him, as much as amazon’s look inside.
that is one of the most inane articles ever. and unfortunately, i made my firstyearcomp class read it.
sorry for the hyperbole
that is one of the most inane articles ever. and unfortunately, i made my firstyearcomp class read it.
sorry for the hyperbole
hey jmmy- this crybaby posturing of yours stopped being cute several months ago. Nobody here has stolen your lunch money or knocked you off the slide. I took time out of my day to take you seriously, to read what you wrote, think about it, and then engage in the conversation/discussion that you started. Clearly, these were my mistakes. Will try and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
hey jmmy- this crybaby posturing of yours stopped being cute several months ago. Nobody here has stolen your lunch money or knocked you off the slide. I took time out of my day to take you seriously, to read what you wrote, think about it, and then engage in the conversation/discussion that you started. Clearly, these were my mistakes. Will try and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
also sorry for the SAT words
im just getting ready to start tutoring SAT verbal
indeed, i thought that was pretty clear
look inside is weirdo
also sorry for the SAT words
im just getting ready to start tutoring SAT verbal
indeed, i thought that was pretty clear
look inside is weirdo
Why is it that the Atlantic has become less interesting than any other magazine in the world? (hyperbole!) If I read one of there articles, I feel like someone has taken a big shit on my head.
oh, well in that case i’ll just say: death to amazon
sorry i did not mean that to be an attack on you brad.
oh, well in that case i’ll just say: death to amazon
sorry i did not mean that to be an attack on you brad.
I think Brad is fantastic. But I hate The Atlantic.
Oh, that’s cool. I didn’t say that it was true or not, just to think about how such trends affect literature. I’m still thinking about such things and haven’t reached a conclusion yet. There’s validity in some of what the article says, but like most things the meat is in the median.
I do believe such trends exist and that there are changes in a person’s ability to deeply contemplate a single thing, but I’m not certain that it’s so all-fired bad yet. Maybe it is, but change is typically just change. Sometimes I woefully lament what we have lost and other times I clamor for what is yet to come.
Call me a hybrid. I have a foot in both worlds.
Oh, that’s cool. I didn’t say that it was true or not, just to think about how such trends affect literature. I’m still thinking about such things and haven’t reached a conclusion yet. There’s validity in some of what the article says, but like most things the meat is in the median.
I do believe such trends exist and that there are changes in a person’s ability to deeply contemplate a single thing, but I’m not certain that it’s so all-fired bad yet. Maybe it is, but change is typically just change. Sometimes I woefully lament what we have lost and other times I clamor for what is yet to come.
Call me a hybrid. I have a foot in both worlds.
It’s cool, man. See above!
It’s cool, man. See above!
In the last half of 2009 a veiled luddism arose wherein all parts of the modern internets were confronted as being morally bankrupt, disruptive to commerce, and educationally unsound. It went on for a few years until society adjusted, as it always does, to the changes introduced by science.
Look around the news for awhile, cats: everyone’s dogging the internet these days. Everyone. And many states are taxing the shit out of it. Madness.
In the last half of 2009 a veiled luddism arose wherein all parts of the modern internets were confronted as being morally bankrupt, disruptive to commerce, and educationally unsound. It went on for a few years until society adjusted, as it always does, to the changes introduced by science.
Look around the news for awhile, cats: everyone’s dogging the internet these days. Everyone. And many states are taxing the shit out of it. Madness.
Just as many laud it. The mind fulfills the most dominant thought. We find whatever we’re out on the hunt for, unless it’s money and chicks.
Just as many laud it. The mind fulfills the most dominant thought. We find whatever we’re out on the hunt for, unless it’s money and chicks.
speak for yourself big guy. i’m like mark knopfler
speak for yourself big guy. i’m like mark knopfler
i’m half way through “blood meridian”.
he has a way with the line. mind crushing at times. other times really boring and repetitive from a reader standpoint.
i hope the judge dies gloriously in battle.
something really fucked up.
i really hope that. 150 pages more to go.
i’m half way through “blood meridian”.
he has a way with the line. mind crushing at times. other times really boring and repetitive from a reader standpoint.
i hope the judge dies gloriously in battle.
something really fucked up.
i really hope that. 150 pages more to go.
I kind of liked that article, though it’s not very scientific. Anyway, The Atlantic also just came out with this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence. Uh, PR, I hope this doesn’t give you that sensation though. I think I know what you mean? There was that one by Professor X complaining about teaching English comp that made me feel really depressed.
I kind of liked that article, though it’s not very scientific. Anyway, The Atlantic also just came out with this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence. Uh, PR, I hope this doesn’t give you that sensation though. I think I know what you mean? There was that one by Professor X complaining about teaching English comp that made me feel really depressed.
I doubt Cormac McCarthy thought much about Amazon’s Look Inside. I hope not, anyway. I think, though, if the first five pages are a vortex that make readers throw their mouses* at the wall, so frustrated with the inaccessibility of page 6, well, good on you, author. Cha-ching. Or if those first five are like heroin for an addict looking for a fix of page 6, like gravity on a slinky, an amulet for a zombie, Freddy Mercury for Vanilla Ice . . . a pair of those funny reach-inside-the-incubator gloves for a Condor chick—I think you’re good to go.
I am really, really close to infinity now. I can just see it, and Bono is there, too, writing lyrics . . .
*Computer mouse. No animals were harmed in the writing of this comment.
I doubt Cormac McCarthy thought much about Amazon’s Look Inside. I hope not, anyway. I think, though, if the first five pages are a vortex that make readers throw their mouses* at the wall, so frustrated with the inaccessibility of page 6, well, good on you, author. Cha-ching. Or if those first five are like heroin for an addict looking for a fix of page 6, like gravity on a slinky, an amulet for a zombie, Freddy Mercury for Vanilla Ice . . . a pair of those funny reach-inside-the-incubator gloves for a Condor chick—I think you’re good to go.
I am really, really close to infinity now. I can just see it, and Bono is there, too, writing lyrics . . .
*Computer mouse. No animals were harmed in the writing of this comment.
*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flarf_poetry
*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flarf_poetry
pr, ryan: i’m confused about your reaction to the article. what’s so inane about it, aside from a few hyperbolic flourishes of rhetoric found in most writing? do you not think that technology changes the way people think, interact and function? do you disagree with the fact that the invention of the clock fundamentally changed the way people started thinking about the universe, made it possible to bring about advancements in science that conceived of the universe as governed by determinate laws and paved the way for nietzsche’s statement ‘god is dead’, which wasn’t so much a statement as a warning and summary of what he was witnessing occur in westen civilization? and how don’t you think the internet is not affecting us now?
the advances in modern technologies (of the last century or two) fundamentally changed the way society was structured and functioned, but i agree with the article that digital technology is a different beast, not only changing our habits and routines, but the internal circuitry as well (maybe not to the extent of a scifi version of 2001, but that’s simply a matter of degree, not kind). i’m confused by the reactions to the article. do you simply disagree with the premise? is it not affecting us cognitively at all? or do you just dislike the foreseen negative affects on literature, on the reading experience? do you believe that contemplative engagement can be turned on and off at will, and is in no way affected by consuming massive amounts of information? what’s the essential flaw of the article?
pr, ryan: i’m confused about your reaction to the article. what’s so inane about it, aside from a few hyperbolic flourishes of rhetoric found in most writing? do you not think that technology changes the way people think, interact and function? do you disagree with the fact that the invention of the clock fundamentally changed the way people started thinking about the universe, made it possible to bring about advancements in science that conceived of the universe as governed by determinate laws and paved the way for nietzsche’s statement ‘god is dead’, which wasn’t so much a statement as a warning and summary of what he was witnessing occur in westen civilization? and how don’t you think the internet is not affecting us now?
the advances in modern technologies (of the last century or two) fundamentally changed the way society was structured and functioned, but i agree with the article that digital technology is a different beast, not only changing our habits and routines, but the internal circuitry as well (maybe not to the extent of a scifi version of 2001, but that’s simply a matter of degree, not kind). i’m confused by the reactions to the article. do you simply disagree with the premise? is it not affecting us cognitively at all? or do you just dislike the foreseen negative affects on literature, on the reading experience? do you believe that contemplative engagement can be turned on and off at will, and is in no way affected by consuming massive amounts of information? what’s the essential flaw of the article?
Well, I’m not pr or Ryan, but I thought it lacked scientific evidence. That’s not the Atlantic’s role, I know, it’s not Science, and it raised interesting questions—it just bothered me how much the author relied on narrow, anecdotal evidence to get his point across. It didn’t seem well researched; it favored rhetorical flourishes over strong evidence. Same with the Professor X article. I don’t know the answers to your questions, but I think neither does the scientific community.
“What Makes Us Happy?” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness) on the other hand relied on vast amounts of research and came to a less decisive conclusion, which I liked.
Well, I’m not pr or Ryan, but I thought it lacked scientific evidence. That’s not the Atlantic’s role, I know, it’s not Science, and it raised interesting questions—it just bothered me how much the author relied on narrow, anecdotal evidence to get his point across. It didn’t seem well researched; it favored rhetorical flourishes over strong evidence. Same with the Professor X article. I don’t know the answers to your questions, but I think neither does the scientific community.
“What Makes Us Happy?” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness) on the other hand relied on vast amounts of research and came to a less decisive conclusion, which I liked.
William Gass on The Tunnel, at Bookworm: http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw950313william_h_gass
Nearly half of the interview is Gass and Silverblatt talking about this very issue. Gass, as always, says very smart things.
William Gass on The Tunnel, at Bookworm: http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw950313william_h_gass
Nearly half of the interview is Gass and Silverblatt talking about this very issue. Gass, as always, says very smart things.
well, my initial reaction was exagerattdied overthetop. sorry about that. that was irresponsible of me. i should have known id have to think harder about this. and i dont disagree that how we read/write/think is affected by the medium. i find i write better when i type. i take notes better handwriting because i can make quick scribbles, etc. i read more comfortably when i have good light and neat posture. so yes, those thigns do affect my thinking/communications in some way.
but i think what carr misses, for me maybe, is that hes left out the howpeoplereadisaffectedalsobyWHYtheyread thing. its something i try to help my studnets figure out for themselves: that purpose should also affect process. we talk about types of reading: ideally, you read a facebook feed much differently than you read a housing contract. so carr is saying hes fidgety when he reads? okay. i fidget too. i think, though, in the case of fidgets, it could be as simple as just focusing more? his friend who cant read war and peace anymore? i find that sort of silly. war and peace is a different kind of reading than what carr describes he does online. i resist this idea that the internet so directly affects how we think that it would keep someone from reading a book comfortably. im not saying i dont think it affects our thought process, how i get information, etc, but that i disagree with what i took to be carrs main point here: that it is the main source of change in our thinking.
i wish carr had written more about that study, the one where the participants skimmed documents for their research. when i read that, i thought of how i research. skimming activity like that described in the study is what occurs when im in the initial stages of a project: the hours i spent in the library stacks or the minutes i spend on the internet are time that it took me to skim, poke around, save things for later close reading/notetaking. my skimming might take less time now because my tools are more advanced, but how i researched was/is still directly affected, more so than the materials/tools, by the purpose behind it: ‘here im going to skim this journal for articles on the southern gothic in oconners stories so that i can find relevant articles to read very closely later.’ the flaw of the study (or maybe carrs evaluation of the study) is that we arent told (or carr doesnt examine) the rest of the research process, the essential close reading, interaction with the sources, etc. that good researchers peform. to me, thats not a change in thought process, but a change in purpose.
so i think my negative reaction to the article is that he seems to suggest that the internet is much more responsible for how our thought processes change than i think it really is and that he doesnt investigate how purpose drives our reading process, or how the internet and purpose relate.
sorry i typed this really quickly. sorry for typos. i hav this feeling that i might have overlooked somehting though, keith?
well, my initial reaction was exagerattdied overthetop. sorry about that. that was irresponsible of me. i should have known id have to think harder about this. and i dont disagree that how we read/write/think is affected by the medium. i find i write better when i type. i take notes better handwriting because i can make quick scribbles, etc. i read more comfortably when i have good light and neat posture. so yes, those thigns do affect my thinking/communications in some way.
but i think what carr misses, for me maybe, is that hes left out the howpeoplereadisaffectedalsobyWHYtheyread thing. its something i try to help my studnets figure out for themselves: that purpose should also affect process. we talk about types of reading: ideally, you read a facebook feed much differently than you read a housing contract. so carr is saying hes fidgety when he reads? okay. i fidget too. i think, though, in the case of fidgets, it could be as simple as just focusing more? his friend who cant read war and peace anymore? i find that sort of silly. war and peace is a different kind of reading than what carr describes he does online. i resist this idea that the internet so directly affects how we think that it would keep someone from reading a book comfortably. im not saying i dont think it affects our thought process, how i get information, etc, but that i disagree with what i took to be carrs main point here: that it is the main source of change in our thinking.
i wish carr had written more about that study, the one where the participants skimmed documents for their research. when i read that, i thought of how i research. skimming activity like that described in the study is what occurs when im in the initial stages of a project: the hours i spent in the library stacks or the minutes i spend on the internet are time that it took me to skim, poke around, save things for later close reading/notetaking. my skimming might take less time now because my tools are more advanced, but how i researched was/is still directly affected, more so than the materials/tools, by the purpose behind it: ‘here im going to skim this journal for articles on the southern gothic in oconners stories so that i can find relevant articles to read very closely later.’ the flaw of the study (or maybe carrs evaluation of the study) is that we arent told (or carr doesnt examine) the rest of the research process, the essential close reading, interaction with the sources, etc. that good researchers peform. to me, thats not a change in thought process, but a change in purpose.
so i think my negative reaction to the article is that he seems to suggest that the internet is much more responsible for how our thought processes change than i think it really is and that he doesnt investigate how purpose drives our reading process, or how the internet and purpose relate.
sorry i typed this really quickly. sorry for typos. i hav this feeling that i might have overlooked somehting though, keith?
and yes, inane is dumb of me to have said.
and yes, inane is dumb of me to have said.
He uses language in striking and beautiful ways to explore fascinating themes, and manages to be balls out entertaining at the same time. So, yes: awesome!
He uses language in striking and beautiful ways to explore fascinating themes, and manages to be balls out entertaining at the same time. So, yes: awesome!
heath: good point. perhaps the entire article should be read more as an anecdote in itself. it’s probably too soon for science to ascertain any significant data on the effects of the internet, given its nascent status. with modern imaging technology it might be possible to observe different brainwave activity when engaged in different types of symbolic processing, and possibly deduce some consequences based on that. although, i’m always a bit skeptical of science (even though i majored in it) due to the fact that its solely limited to the domain of quantification.
ryan: inane was one of my favorite words when i first discovered it (along with gobbledygook and misanthrope), perhaps due to its phonetic proximity to insane. exaggerated, ok i can see that. i don’t think i’m hardwired the same as most people, but in my limited scope i find that when i return to book-reading after internet-surfing i have to make a conscious adjustment, i have to shift into a different gear or mindset and remind myself that i am essentially engaging in a different activity and for different reasons–which as you said relates to purpose. so i think that is definitely an important idea to keep in mind and something he in no way addressed. but i would also say, that it’s probably a two-way process: the internet can subliminally change the mode of purpose by conditioning us to expect information, and therefore forget our contemplative/introspective/imaginative faculties. thanks for the thoughts.
heath: good point. perhaps the entire article should be read more as an anecdote in itself. it’s probably too soon for science to ascertain any significant data on the effects of the internet, given its nascent status. with modern imaging technology it might be possible to observe different brainwave activity when engaged in different types of symbolic processing, and possibly deduce some consequences based on that. although, i’m always a bit skeptical of science (even though i majored in it) due to the fact that its solely limited to the domain of quantification.
ryan: inane was one of my favorite words when i first discovered it (along with gobbledygook and misanthrope), perhaps due to its phonetic proximity to insane. exaggerated, ok i can see that. i don’t think i’m hardwired the same as most people, but in my limited scope i find that when i return to book-reading after internet-surfing i have to make a conscious adjustment, i have to shift into a different gear or mindset and remind myself that i am essentially engaging in a different activity and for different reasons–which as you said relates to purpose. so i think that is definitely an important idea to keep in mind and something he in no way addressed. but i would also say, that it’s probably a two-way process: the internet can subliminally change the mode of purpose by conditioning us to expect information, and therefore forget our contemplative/introspective/imaginative faculties. thanks for the thoughts.
There’s always Marshall McLuhan’s theory that you should choose a book based on page 69: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jul/23/tofindyourperfectnovelsee.
I do like “Look Inside” insofar as it gives me a glimpse into the author’s style. When I read a book review, what jumps out are the sentences, and I usually give more weight to the quotes from the book itself than the plots summary or claims of “crystalline prose” or comparisons made to other authors, etc. Those first five can be misleading, though, like the opening of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, one of my favorite novels. The opening threw me back a bunch of times like an overgrown thicket. Thankfully I had it from reliable sources that the book kicked ass and so macheted on through, but it’s definitely one of those that teaches you to read it–and as soon as you get settled, moves elsewhere. Portrait is a little like this too, actually…magical though that first page is it is larval and we want pupae and, of course, the full-blown insect, even though I prefer the second-to-last chapter where he’s doggedly walking the hellfire-and-brimstone streets and seeing prostitutes to the aesthetic debates of the final chapter.
Bottom line is that it’s good to take a book for a test drive. Fifty pages great, five pages better than none. Drive it on the local roads, take it on the highway, whip it over a few frost-heaves, make the dealer’s hair stand on end, see how it rides.
There’s always Marshall McLuhan’s theory that you should choose a book based on page 69: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jul/23/tofindyourperfectnovelsee.
I do like “Look Inside” insofar as it gives me a glimpse into the author’s style. When I read a book review, what jumps out are the sentences, and I usually give more weight to the quotes from the book itself than the plots summary or claims of “crystalline prose” or comparisons made to other authors, etc. Those first five can be misleading, though, like the opening of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, one of my favorite novels. The opening threw me back a bunch of times like an overgrown thicket. Thankfully I had it from reliable sources that the book kicked ass and so macheted on through, but it’s definitely one of those that teaches you to read it–and as soon as you get settled, moves elsewhere. Portrait is a little like this too, actually…magical though that first page is it is larval and we want pupae and, of course, the full-blown insect, even though I prefer the second-to-last chapter where he’s doggedly walking the hellfire-and-brimstone streets and seeing prostitutes to the aesthetic debates of the final chapter.
Bottom line is that it’s good to take a book for a test drive. Fifty pages great, five pages better than none. Drive it on the local roads, take it on the highway, whip it over a few frost-heaves, make the dealer’s hair stand on end, see how it rides.
i think i used the look inside a few times but it was a long time ago. i remember using it not to see if i’d be interested in the book but to see what the style of the writing was. i can usually tell if i will ike a book based on the style.
i think i used the look inside a few times but it was a long time ago. i remember using it not to see if i’d be interested in the book but to see what the style of the writing was. i can usually tell if i will ike a book based on the style.
Keith- I just don’t like the Atlantic period. That’s my problem. Sorry. They also had this really dumb article called “settling” or something like that, where a journalist in her forties who had a baby in vitro and called her therapist to share the joy when she got pregnant gives ups relationship advice. I mean, it was supposed to actively engage with a real issue of lonliness or human relations and it didn’t at all.
I just find all of thier articles “contraversial” in a very fake way. But don’t listen to me. I don’t read them anymore so what do I know.
Should I look? I might look. Sigh. I also stopped reading the NYT Sunday book review three years ago. I’m just a grumpy person.
This is a nice way of being in the world.
OK, I read three sentences and that’s all I can do. I guess I just can’t stand “google making us” smarter or dumber. This is not to say that technology doesn’t affect us- as Keith knows- I am a huge fan of the art in the age of mechanical reproduction by Walter Benjamin and very interested in Keith’s theories on the internet’s effects on us and language and so forth. But I just don’t like The Atlantic! What’s wrong with me? I guess it’s the whole make a statement and then argue it’s defense- it’s not even really that investigative (OK, I don’t read the magazine anymore, so ignore me I guess). What is that – tautology? Or something? I gotta go. Contemplation of these issues are great, sensational glossy mag journalism is not.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry
This was the article that made smoke come out of my ears…but I had been irritated with the magazine for a few years. I think they went through some editorial changes – sort of like Tina Brown at the new yorker–and they lost me as a reader.
i didn’t quite understand your vehemence given the content of past discussions of a similar nature. but those distinctions (and your ‘fake controversy’ observation) clarifies the issue. gotcha.
i didn’t quite understand your vehemence given the content of past discussions of a similar nature. but those distinctions (and your ‘fake controversy’ observation) clarifies the issue. gotcha.
Just ignore me on this one- yes I love the discussion in general, I just stupidly have something against The Atlantic. I love reading your comments and observations on technology, Keith. I haven’t had a cigarette in five days so please take pity on me. As I mentioned, I also stopped reading the ny times book review three or four years ago, because it pissed me off one too many times.
I think you are right when you mention that some hyberbole is to be expected in journalism (although I will say that The Atlantic is particularly egrgious of this in my opinion) and your more forgiving nature toward this issue will serve you well in abosrbing information. I admire your coolheadedness in regard to this.
Steven Johnson wrote a book called something like everything that is bad for you is good for you in regard to video games and stuff. You may want to look into his ideas (again, the broad strokes and “good or bad” for you arguments don’t interest me, but he may have something of interest for you). I like your change discussions, your causuality discussions, and so forth, but you never moralize. (Right?)
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-Steven-Johnson/dp/B000O17CYM
This book! He’s a smart man. But again, the good bad ideology doesn’t interest me so much, but he may have some interestingg data for you.
Oh, I totally know what you mean about the “Marry Him” article, pr. That was like, hello 1860.
And this one is pretty irksome, too: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/case-against-breastfeeding
Ha ha, but look, I’m falling into their trap sending their links out there. “Make a fuss and they will come,” seems to be their editorial policy of late. Sigh, it must have been moving to DC that did it.
Oh, I totally know what you mean about the “Marry Him” article, pr. That was like, hello 1860.
And this one is pretty irksome, too: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/case-against-breastfeeding
Ha ha, but look, I’m falling into their trap sending their links out there. “Make a fuss and they will come,” seems to be their editorial policy of late. Sigh, it must have been moving to DC that did it.
Right- it’s all the generate some false contraversy!!! AG!
“Or is it this generation’s vacuum cleaner—an instrument of misery that mostly just keeps women down?”
I mean- so many things are wrong about this line that it is truly difficult to get past it. Yeah, life was better before the invention of the vacuum cleaner?! And before we discovered breastfeeding? Honestly, the article may have some interesting things to say- I’ll never know, because I am not going to read the thing– but it’s so hysterical and sensational.
This is why when I get on an airplane and buy magazines, I now buy Maxim and read about various potato chips and bourbon and check out hometown hotties. Fuck the Atlantic. I read Harpers still– but The Atlantic is so ass.
Something happened to them. I think they hired someone who used to work at In Touch and that is why they suck.
damn, wish i could retract comments!
damn, wish i could retract comments!
pr, no worries, none. i was just confused by your (and others) initial response without understanding what was causing the reaction. sometimes (very often) i’m tone-deaf and need people to point out certain things before i am able to see what others do. in general i don’t like pet peeves, they annoy me, but i must admit that one pet peeve is hyperbole, particularly because i take everything so literally and i disdain inaccuracy for the sake of emotional manipulation (but i myself get swept up and am guilty sometimes). i try to ignore it. and i am more sensitive to information overload than most because little amounts of symbolic processing can cause detrimental mental and physical effects upon my person. and yeah i hear ya about moralizing stuff. that’s not really my bag. i have general opinions of good and bad: asshole = bad; empathic = good. and i don’t mind people expressing prescriptive opinions as long as they can separate that from critical analysis: the two are wholly separate. i’m often too busy trying to wrap my head around something to start tossing around should’s and should-not’s. primarily my goal is to understand something, rather than tell people what to do. so i guess when i do come across that stuff, i generally filter it out because prescription does not aid understanding, and a lot of the time it’s a matter of definition, so i don’t take it seriously, and a lot of the time i ‘m too naive to know the difference. anyways, not really sure what i’m talking about anymore. good luck with the not smoking. thanks for the book recommendation. always interesting talking to you and the ideas you’ve fed into the conveyor belt of my mind.
pr, no worries, none. i was just confused by your (and others) initial response without understanding what was causing the reaction. sometimes (very often) i’m tone-deaf and need people to point out certain things before i am able to see what others do. in general i don’t like pet peeves, they annoy me, but i must admit that one pet peeve is hyperbole, particularly because i take everything so literally and i disdain inaccuracy for the sake of emotional manipulation (but i myself get swept up and am guilty sometimes). i try to ignore it. and i am more sensitive to information overload than most because little amounts of symbolic processing can cause detrimental mental and physical effects upon my person. and yeah i hear ya about moralizing stuff. that’s not really my bag. i have general opinions of good and bad: asshole = bad; empathic = good. and i don’t mind people expressing prescriptive opinions as long as they can separate that from critical analysis: the two are wholly separate. i’m often too busy trying to wrap my head around something to start tossing around should’s and should-not’s. primarily my goal is to understand something, rather than tell people what to do. so i guess when i do come across that stuff, i generally filter it out because prescription does not aid understanding, and a lot of the time it’s a matter of definition, so i don’t take it seriously, and a lot of the time i ‘m too naive to know the difference. anyways, not really sure what i’m talking about anymore. good luck with the not smoking. thanks for the book recommendation. always interesting talking to you and the ideas you’ve fed into the conveyor belt of my mind.
Keith, thank you for not holding my pissiness against me here. I too have opinions and actually love moral questioning in general, but not in regard to technological changes being good or bad. They just are, and they have huge implications as to who we are and how we disseminate(sp?) information. But to say “Google is making us dumb” is sensational and not actually–like you do- engaging in the true, huge changes that are ocurring in our lives (imo).
So, as much as I love to hear you munch on the internet and the implications on langauge and cognition, I just distrust The Altantic’s ability to handle such a wonderful subject matter with any real intelligence.
I bought a pack of cigarettes tonight.
I reiterate – your ability to get over hyperbolic titles and even thesis in articles will make you a much better reader and absorber of information. I read something like “Marry Him!” and (that one I read the whole thing) but my mind gets clouded and that is my weakness. You are a better reader than me, and I hope to continue to learn from you for that reason.
keith, you are far from tone deaf. you generally keep things honest around here.
keith, you are far from tone deaf. you generally keep things honest around here.
Keith is a Golden Boy here. I am in total agreement with Ryan Call. Keith can not help but be honest. He just is. He is a litmus test of goodness and true thoughtfulness. As I said, my history of reading The Atlantic is deeply colored, and ruins my ability to engage in the conservation soley based on the title “google make you dumb”. I just love Keith. He has been an impetus of thought in the past nine months of my involvement here. I love him.
i actually like the look inside feature. i used to have an insane library but when i lost my job and went broke i had to sell it off to a used bookstore. my memory is pretty good so I usually read most books once, and then when the time comes I can recall what I need nicely, but sometimes, I think I have it right but maybe I don’t. But, you know, I don’t have the book anymore. So I’ll go on amazon, punch in a search term or the exact page, and then look for what I need.
Fuckin helpful as fuck
i actually like the look inside feature. i used to have an insane library but when i lost my job and went broke i had to sell it off to a used bookstore. my memory is pretty good so I usually read most books once, and then when the time comes I can recall what I need nicely, but sometimes, I think I have it right but maybe I don’t. But, you know, I don’t have the book anymore. So I’ll go on amazon, punch in a search term or the exact page, and then look for what I need.
Fuckin helpful as fuck
[…] momentum it takes to turn the first page. Amazon’s “Look Inside!” [see related post] concedes, rightfully or not, that short of judging a book by its cover, one can judge it by its […]