I agree with Carr that the Internet (which itself is changing all the time) changes our reading patterns—only not in the sort of simplistic, bipolar way Carr describes. The immersive reading Carr values is actually a fairly recent invention; and when it did emerge, critics worried a great deal about the spellbindinding powers of novels. And anyway, dipping and dreaming are hardly the only two modes of reading; journalism depends on and fosters others (immersive long-form narrative journalism being a cherished form, but hardly the only one that matters). I’m not sure that kind of reading isn’t possible on Internet, but if it isn’t—yet—we should be patient, and (if we desire it) insist on seeing it emerge. Gutenberg didn’t invent the novel—it took centuries after his time for that kind of reading to seize hold. We can give the Internet a few more years, can’t we?

Non-fiction books have indexes, which is surely direct evidence of a non-linear form of reading that’s oriented around dipping into particular parts rather than digesting the whole in order. While this isn’t the deep analytic linear read-through that’s required to really understand scholarly ideas (that is to say, dipping in will never get you a full understanding of Hegel), I’d be unwilling to call it shallow.

Maybe it’s actually a type of reading that’s oriented towards being creative? If linear reading is about understanding the author’s POV in depth, the non-linear dipping approach tends instead encourages the synthesis of ideas the books consulted may have not connected. The new route through the text forms new connections and encourages new ideas…

But does Battles suggest they do on the Internet?

Isn’t it rather true that dipping and skimming are possible on the Internet but not literary reading?

If he admits that, then must he not also agree, that the Internet is changing the human experience of reading, as Carr maintains?

As I just wrote over at CNet, I almost bought the book, as intriguing as its premise is.

Then I flipped to a page, randomly, and read: “Google may yet turn out to be a flash in the pan.”

I scoffed, snickered, shook my head, put the book back down and went and picked up a few magazines for my short-attention-span brain.

Great writing, Matthew. A welcome perspective. It all reminds me of the old ‘What’s the matter with kids today?’ song from Bye Bye Birdie – each generation tsk tsking and chastising at what’s “lost” (dubiously) rather than embracing what’s newly found, while realizing that moderation is a virtue in any endeavor and every tool is a weapon and vice versa, etc.

Thanks.