So for me, the question of where digital texts fit into my life doesn’t have a black and white answer. I’m no defender of technology by any means. I have especially strong views about the damaging effects of social media, but otherwise I find many uses for digital texts and think I have benefited from the knowledge I’ve gained from them—even if they do occasionally suck away my time. But is it a bad thing that engaging in digital texts sometimes sucks away my time? Carr suggests that people today probably read more than they did in the 1980s when everyone just watched television all the time, yet he still has a problem with the kind of reading we do online.
In response to the idea that people no longer engage in deep reading because of how reading has changed in the digital age, I would like to suggest that many people still read deeply, but it has to really interest them. I will read a long article on a topic I enjoy, but I will skim something that interests me less. I don’t see a problem with this. So no, I don’t think Google is making me stupid. However I wonder at Carr’s idea that the inability to engage in deep reading suggests a person is stupid. There are many kinds of intelligences—linguistic being only one of nine if you subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences—and perhaps some are strengthened and encouraged by use of digital texts. Others may not even be affected by technology.
In conclusion, here is my advice to anyone wrestling with this issue:
- Don’t be pretentious and cynical. We all rely on technology so you might as well stop complaining and get on with things.
- Recognize digital texts for what they are and find ways to use them positively in your life.
- Find what interests you, dive deep into it, and don’t feel bad for skimming the surface of the rest.