Slashdot Mirror
How the Internet Changed the Way We Read (dailydot.com)
An anonymous reader writes: UC Literature Professor Jackson Bliss puts into words something many of you have probably experienced: the evolution of the internet and mobile devices has changed how we read. "The truth is that most of us read continuously in a perpetual stream of incestuous words, but instead of reading novels, book reviews, or newspapers like we used to in the ancien régime, we now read text messages, social media, and bite-sized entries about our protean cultural history on Wikipedia."
Bliss continues, "In the great epistemic galaxy of words, we have become both reading junkies and also professional text skimmers. ... Reading has become a relentless exercise in self-validation, which is why we get impatient when writers don't come out and simply tell us what they're arguing. ... Content—whether thought-provoking, regurgitated, or analytically superficial, impeccably-researched, politically doctrinaire, or grammatically atrocious—now occupies the same cultural space, the same screen space, and the same mental space in the public imagination. After awhile, we just stop keeping track of what's legitimately good because it takes too much energy to separate the crème from the foam."
Bliss continues, "In the great epistemic galaxy of words, we have become both reading junkies and also professional text skimmers. ... Reading has become a relentless exercise in self-validation, which is why we get impatient when writers don't come out and simply tell us what they're arguing. ... Content—whether thought-provoking, regurgitated, or analytically superficial, impeccably-researched, politically doctrinaire, or grammatically atrocious—now occupies the same cultural space, the same screen space, and the same mental space in the public imagination. After awhile, we just stop keeping track of what's legitimately good because it takes too much energy to separate the crème from the foam."
tl;dr
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
With that much excessively verbose pomposity in the summary, the article must be insufferable.
TL;DR: Kids these days.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
most of us read continuously in a perpetual stream of incestuous words
Remember kids, that's where portmanteau words come from.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I'm not even making a slashdot-type "nobody reads the article" joke here - literally no one anywhere is going to read the article when you use high-level SAT words and phrases like:
incestuous words
regime (not referring to a country's leadership)
protean
epistemic
doctrinaire
If its supposed to be ironic, I get it, but if its not then you failed miserably and don't even understand your own ideas.
I think its good to have as big of a vocabulary as possible and I actually recognize most of these words or could figure it out from contrast, and I consider myself to have a fairly above-average vocab due to having an English teacher for a Mom, but repeatedly using "big" words like those is just a shortcut to letting us know you're an asshole without much to say.
tldr version:
tldr.
I disagree. I don't think it is the attention span. I skip reading things if the author has not clearly stated his/her point within the first 3 paragraphs.
From the summary:
What does the phrase "incestuous words" mean?
Why is "continuously" used in the same sentence with "perpetual"?
How is "cultural history" associated with "protean"?
The problem isn't the attention span. The problem is trying to figure out what someone is really saying. Electrons are cheaper than ink. That does not mean it is acceptable to pack in the adjectives and adverbs just because you don't have to pay a printer.
That is what I suspected. The problem is that "history" should not be "Protean".
Instead of
I would suggest "our Protean culture". Or even "... our changing culture".
I am reminded of The Eye or Argon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye_of_Argon
Who's to say what is "legitimately" good?
There are several points of view that all encompass "good." A piece of writing might be
- funny
- insightful
- artistic
- emotional
- provocative
- motivational
- well-crafted
Each of these (and other characteristics) might characterize writing as "good" even if it doesn't possess all of them.
In other words, beauty (or goodness) is in the eye of the beholder.