Nobel Laureate Says The Internet Makes Us Dumb(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Nobel Laureate Says The Internet Makes Us Dumb
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/09/nobel-laureate-says-the-internet-makes-us-dumb-we-say-meh/
14 comments
I would contend that the subset of people who would actually read literature were it not for the internet is minuscule. I'm sure that in the absence of the internet, most people would find equally inane things to do rather than read literature.
Like watching season 4 of The Girls Next Door?
Wow. Thank you, Techcrunch, for proving her point about "inanity".
If you actually bother to quote this paragraph accurately, Doris isn't saying anything that Merlin Mann and his fans haven't already said at much greater length [1].
[1] e.g. http://wiki.43folders.com/index.php/Blog_less
If you actually bother to quote this paragraph accurately, Doris isn't saying anything that Merlin Mann and his fans haven't already said at much greater length [1].
[1] e.g. http://wiki.43folders.com/index.php/Blog_less
I don't think so. I find writing for a web audience makes me work harder. I know I'll get busted quickly and publicly if I say something mistaken. And I also know that I have to work harder to keep people's attention than I would in print, because they have a lot of other options a click away.
When you're writing an article for The New Yorker, you can give it a self-indulgently artsy title and begin with a few paragraphs of clever run-up. On the web you have to call things what they are and get straight to the point.
Also, more people get to publish online. Everyone who wants to publishes, and the good stuff floats to the top. In the old model, only people who pleased editors got to publish. That excluded a lot of people who had interesting things to say.
When you're writing an article for The New Yorker, you can give it a self-indulgently artsy title and begin with a few paragraphs of clever run-up. On the web you have to call things what they are and get straight to the point.
Also, more people get to publish online. Everyone who wants to publishes, and the good stuff floats to the top. In the old model, only people who pleased editors got to publish. That excluded a lot of people who had interesting things to say.
As a computer science major, I've learned more of the material for my coursework on the internet than from the actual class. Maybe that says something about the course, maybe that says something about the nature of the major, but either way, I'm not disconnecting.
Not just a Nobel Laureate, this is Dorris Lessing we're talking about
here. I truly great writer who is still writing with a clarity we can
all be envious of at the age of 89. The full article is really worth reading: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2223780,00.html
Techcrunch is only showing their own ignorance by misunderstanding her
position, maybe the internet really has made them dumb?
The internet is the first medium that doesn't intrinsically favor one narrative form over another. Blogs exist because it's possible to economically "publish" a paragraph. They abound, because thinking up one paragraph articles is easy. It's equally possible to publish a novel or a serial, or some new form. We really can't know yet what the long term literary impact of the internet will be.
I think the main distinction between web and print is that the web expects content to be free. Most free online material on a given subject is garbage or fluff. The average quality of printed information is higher, because of the monetary aspect.
However, there's tons of great information online locked up in databases and newsletters requiring paid subscription. It's just that when people talk about "the web" they're usually referring to all the free crap.
However, there's tons of great information online locked up in databases and newsletters requiring paid subscription. It's just that when people talk about "the web" they're usually referring to all the free crap.
The "free crap" has a huge survival advantage, speaking in Darwinian terms - it can be copied, remixed, linked, shared, brought up to date, and improved upon. Paid content is locked out of the culture. It's dead data.
I agree in the sense that the internet conditions us to accept quick, bite-size blurbs of information. This has resulted in a society of instant gratification and petty distractions. Seldom do people have the patience or discipline anymore to read an enriching piece of literature that actually has substance or to embark on a fulfilling journey of mastering a certain craft. This behavioral byproduct of the internet is also similar to what happens when all a person absorbs is television programming and magazines.
Her article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=87752
"... and you kids get off my lawn!"
Substitute "television" for "internet" and I agree with this argument. There are 3 big differences: choice, proactivity, and interactivity. Otherwise, I don't buy it.
This paragraph is the real point she makes about the internet.
>What has happened to us is an amazing invention - computers and the internet and TV. It is a revolution. This is not the first revolution the human race has dealt with. The printing revolution, which did not take place in a matter of a few decades, but took much longer, transformed our minds and ways of thinking. A foolhardy lot, we accepted it all, as we always do, never asked: "What is going to happen to us now, with this invention of print?" In the same way, we never thought to ask, "How will our lives, our way of thinking, be changed by the internet, which has seduced a whole generation with its inanities so that even quite reasonable people will confess that, once they are hooked, it is hard to cut free, and they may find a whole day has passed in blogging etc?"