The National Catholic Review
Jon M. Sweeney
Will texts and tweets replace reading?
Image

A depressing set of figures came to my attention the other day from the 2010 Kids & Family Reading Report, a survey of 1,045 American households that was conducted by the Harrison Group for Scholastic Inc., the publisher of the Harry Potter series. According to the survey, 25 percent of children between the ages of 9 and 17 say that texting with their friends counts as “reading.” I am a writer and editor who works in book publishing, and physical books have been a large part of my life for at least 25 years. So that bit of information could not look worse to my print-loving eyes. Just when print publishers (including the magazine and newspaper industries) are hanging on to the physical book by a thread, we hear that young people think texting equals reading. This isn’t about preferring to read Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s new novel on your iPhone or iPad. This is about doing away with reading altogether.

When you think of the allure of reading, does your mind immediately return to the marvelous experiences you have had with books, and to the ideas, characters, places and situations you have experienced through reading? Mine, too. Sometimes I feel the need to raid the baggy jean pockets of teenagers everywhere, steal their cellphones and organize phone-burnings for the sake of God and country. But in truth, my first stumbling response to this factoid was to post it on my Facebook page.

I realize this is more than a little self-contradictory—using social media to express dismay over the popularity of social media. But on my Facebook post I imagined how the world of literature and letters would be different if some of the writers from whom I have learned so much had texted and tweeted rather than written, read and talked to one another. I imagined this text message from Thomas Merton to Denise Levertov: “Luv yr new bk hun! :)”

The Collected Postings?

Since I have recently read collections of letters by Graham Greene and Ted Hughes, I have also begun to imagine a future in which books of letters are no longer published. Will there be collections of e-mail messages, Facebook postings and tweets? I can imagine what a sample might look like, even if written by a great novelist or poet. The editor of such a volume might identify the source and date of the communication of each entry, “Sent from the author’s TweetDeck on Dec. 3, 2009, at 1:20 a.m.” Then the tweet: “Endless revisions these days on my Jesus book. My editor is making me crazy!” You can’t say much in 140 characters or fewer.

That is part of the problem. As reading is redefined to be less and less, shorter and shorter, ideas must necessarily become smaller too. Who has the time or energy to reflect as people once did? But new media is only making it harder by creating such easy and interesting entertainments.

Hugh of St. Victor, a 12th-century churchman, spoke of the value of “reading toward wisdom.” I suspect that most if not all of the readers of America still do quite a lot of that. But it is becoming more difficult, isn’t it? The philosopher and priest Ivan Illich wrote nearly 20 years ago, “The screen, the medium, and ‘communication’ have surreptitiously replaced the page, letters, and reading” (see In the Vineyard of the Text). Illich knew where things were headed.

Some of us read more than others, but what concerns me most is who is reading most. Among them would be, for example, the most fundamentalist of religionists—Jewish, Muslim and Christian—who still read in the old style. In the ultra-Orthodox yeshivas in Brooklyn and Israel there are men who read all day. In Israel, these scholars are paid by the Israeli government to study rather than enter the work force. They dedicate their lives to Chochmah, Binah, Da’at—Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge. Similarly, a fundamentalist Muslim is invariably a man who studies ancient texts, interpretations, ideas and knowledge for many hours every day. He carries books with him when he travels. And the fundamentalist Christian, likewise, knows her catechism, canons, Bible, commentaries, languages and ideas better than most of her more progressive peers.

The written word has moved from pages to pixels. That is value neutral. Take another look at the figures from the 2010 study: 25 percent of young people call texting “reading.” Forty years ago, 25 percent of young people between the ages of 9 and 17 surely thought, as I did, that staring at a cereal box in the morning while chewing breakfast counted as “reading.” The fact is, whether 40 years ago or last year, more than half of American households do not buy a single book in a year. That is the way it has long been. Now households are not buying a single e-book, either. One could say there is just as much hope for the future now as a generation ago.

A Reading Migration

In what are called newly enhanced books, you can click on video, audio and other bits of content as you read. That is value neutral, too. But an inevitable result of all of this creativity is a corresponding lack of concentration. It is harder to focus on any one thing. That too might be value neutral, except that those of us on the religious left, in an embrace of the world, might allow new technologies to steer us further and further away from the sort of reading that results in wisdom and knowledge.

The problem is less that a portion of the population does not read books or thinks that texting is akin to reading Illich and Adichie. Rather, the problem is that those who read are being lured by gadgetry to read less and less. Social media divide our attention or, more precisely, cater to our already-divided attention.

Like millions of others, I have written at a computer keyboard since college. Already, behavioral scientists are examining whether brains like mine have changed as a result of moving from pen and pencil to typewriter to electronic keyboard. I “think” with my fingers now, when I used to think while writing in longhand. Split-second moments of improvisation are nearly impossible for me with a pen now. In my hand, a pen plods. Pens settle into ink. But the fingers that generate pixels can quickly move, think, correct and communicate.

As we stopped expressing our knowledge of God, self and the world with pen on paper, we lost something in the transition, including the skills of memory and study that characterized previous generations. What we have gained in gathering and synthesizing information is often a matter of appearances only—as those who consult Wikipedia for the facts for which one used to scour libraries will attest. Our ability to present findings and narrative quickly has increased astronomically. Perhaps that is knowledge, but it is not wisdom.

What will we lose in the next transition? As we tweet and hyperlink, will we sustain the focused concentration required for real discovery?

Half of the young people surveyed who said texting was the same thing as reading also said that they “read books in order to help figure out who I am and who I can become.” Let’s hope that there is still time.

Jon M. Sweeney lives in Vermont. He is the author of Verily, Verily: The KJV—400 Years of Influence and Beauty (Zondervan).

Comments

Marian Ronan | 7/24/2011 - 3:13pm

merica Magazine


 


To the Editors:


 


 


I share Jon M. Sweeney’s concern (“From Pages to Pixels,” July 18-26) that current and future generations are being cheated of the wisdom that accompanies reading books. I disagree, however, that technology—computers, the Internet, social media—is the cause of the problem. I am thinking here of my nephew, who has 1136 friends on Facebook and uses Twitter, but also reads book and writes essays with gusto. In a few weeks, he’ll matriculate in the highly competitive undergraduate program at Yale.


 


The cause of the decline in reading and writing in the United States is not technology but the increasing economic disparity between the top ten percent of Americans and everybody else, as well as the evisceration of public education that accompanies it.  My nephew’s parents are both attorneys, and before Yale, he enjoyed twelve years of private schooling (senior tuition, $18,000).


 


But forty million American adults are high school dropouts, virtually guaranteeing them a lifetime of poverty. And rather than raise taxes on that top ten percent, we continue to increase class size and lay off teachers in public schools while closing libraries (or cutting back their hours).  As Nicholas Kristoff argues in today’s New York Times, there is outrage in Washington over increasing revenue or expenditures, but hardly a murmur was heard when Federal funding ended for Reading is Fundamental, a 45-year non-profit program that provided books and tutoring for four million low-income children last year.


(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/24kristof.html?_r=1


 


Jon Sweeney is correct to remind us that the current decline of reading and writing among our young people portends a spiritual crisis. But it’s a social justice crisis as well.


 

Darrin Snyder Belousek | 7/11/2011 - 2:58pm

Thanks, Jon, for this reflection on reading.  I would disagree, however, with your repeated refrain, "That is value neutral."  In fact, re-reading your piece, you disagree with it as well.  You recognize that "we lost something in the transition" from pages to pixels.  Something good has been left behind and needs to be retrieved.  Such transitional loss is not "value neutral."  Your stated view reflects the oft-heard claim that technology itself is value neutral-it all depends on how we use it.  Not actually so.  Here the reader should recall Marshall McLuhan's dictum, "the medium is the message."  The means of communication is not value neutral but shapes the end of communication, the message to be communicated.  That is, means (medium) and ends (message) need to be thought together, for to change the medium is to change the message.  To shift from pages and indexes to pixels and hyperlinks is, indeed, to change the form of consciousness with which one attends to the message.  The chief "virtue" of social media is (ironically) immediacy-efficiency and speed.  Electronic communication creates a constant connectedness that requires no constancy on the part of the user but rather encourages drifting or "surfing."  Social media and electronic communication thus diminish the very kind of attention necessary for "reading toward wisdom," attention characterized by the virtues of patience and persistence, slowness and steadiness.

Recently in Ideas