Ignoring the natural
resistance to change, it cannot be denied that the process of reading
has changed with the emergence of digital technology. For example,
the introduction and developments in e-readers in recent years, have
rendered digital books competitive to conventional paper-based books.
According to Pew Research Center, 27% of Americans read e-books in
2015, and this number is steadily rising. Some of the reasons for the
popularity of e-books over paper books include space savings, cost
cutting and reading ease; the possibility of increasing font size and
back lighting in e-readers can help hypermetropic readers read more
easily. But is there a difference in how people perceive/understand
between reading from paper books and reading using digital media?
Perhaps yes. A 2013
Norwegian study of the reading pattern of tenth-graders showed that
students who read on paper scored significantly better in reading
comprehension than those who read texts digitally. This is attributed
to the fact that paper gives spatio-temporal markers; the feel of the
paper and the act of turning pages serve as memory markers that are
absent while scrolling down a screen. But there are contradictory
views as well, wherein, the performance vis-à-vis mode of reading is
argued to depend on the attitude and preference of the reader. In one
such study, readers who preferred to read from screens were found to
perform as well as those who had read the text from paper. The
Internet is peppered with arguments for and against e-readers, and
there is no consensus yet on whether e-readers will replace paper
books or not. Having used both forms of books, my verdict is that it
won’t. While e-readers will certainly usurp a significant share of
the books market, it may not replace paper books for the following
reasons:
- While back light and adjustable font could indeed help reading, the very same back light has been known to already cause maladies such as computer vision syndrome. But, short of adopting Aristotle’s wisdom of oral understanding rather than literary understanding, the eye would bear the brunt one way or the other. With adequate precautions (blinking more often, taking breaks, periodic eye checkups etc.), this drawback of digital readers could be overcome.
- On reading a paper book, one can easily flip the pages to refer to something that appeared earlier or will appear later in the book. Such random flipping is difficult with an e-reader where, the reader has to repeatedly press buttons or swish and swipe the screen (Carpal Tunnel anyone?) for the same activity. This is particularly a problem when reading non-linear text, such as non-fiction, where need for constant reference to earlier content can be a serious problem in e-readers.
That e-books could
alter reading and understanding patterns among readers is not a very
serious concern – either way, people are at least reading. In fact,
people who read e-books seem to read more books than those who read
paper books. Where digital technology seems to have had an adverse
effect on reading patterns is when shallow browsing has replaced deep
reading. Indeed, the advent of every new media of information and
communication technology – radio, television, computer, Internet
and social media - has been a threat to the reading habit at
different levels. Part of this intrusion has been the usurping of
concerted reading time by these addictive technological tools.
The word to watch in
the above statement is “concerted”. Reading requires an
uninterrupted chunk of time during which what is read is analyzed and
assimilated and any intrusion, however brief, into this time, can
render the process futile. Researchers from the Central Connecticut
State University tested the effects of instant messaging on reading
comprehension; one group of students read and responded to instant
messages (IMs) while reading an online textbook, another received an
IM before reading, but not during, and the third group read the
textbook without interruption. Students who were interrupted by IMs
took significantly longer to read the passage and performed poorly on
a test of their understanding compared to the other two groups.
The advent of social
networking tools such as Twitter and Facebook has encouraged people
to share and thus read short, to-the-point, thoughts. More
importantly, it has fueled the need for instant gratification,
something not possible while you are thinking Levin’s winding
thoughts in Anna Karenina. Little wonder then that the number of
adults in the US, who have not read literature increased by more than
17 million between 1992 and 2002. The New York Times’ series, “Your
Brain on Computers,” examined how digital devices impact reading
and learning among children and youth. A youngster’s statement that
“On YouTube, ‘you can get a whole story in six minutes,’ rests
the case!
Online reading has
given rise to a new style of perusing, called “F-shaped pattern”,
wherein the eye scans an F-shape on a page to absorb the few main
ideas of the article without fully engaging with any of them. Sven
Birkerts, in his essay, “The Owl Has Flown”, echoes Nicholas
Carr’s sentiments in Is Google Making Us Stupid? that internet
browsing leads not only to a lack of depth in what is read, but a
lack of depth of thinking as well. The parody on the Onion, may not
be a parody after all.
Reading, especially
entertainment reading, such as reading a novel, according to Sven
Birkerts, involves an inward plunge into an imaginary world described
in the novel. This inward plunge requires a considerable amount of
leisure and attention span, which are essential to provide wings to
the imagination. Researchers at Michigan State observed a global
increase in blood flow to the brain when “paying attention to
literary texts” (Mansfield Park, in this experiment), which
“requires the coordination of multiple complex cognitive
functions.” Such focus activated various parts of the brain
associated with touch, movement, and spatial orientation, in effect
immersing the reader in the story. The Internet culture that is
filled with competing stimuli causes the attention to flit between
stimuli, thus limiting imagination and effectively killing it.
Reading literary work has many levels and resonates with the reader
through the use of language. The linguistic density associated with
serious reading requires directed and uninterrupted concentration.
Skimming-based reading fostered by the internet is addictive in that
it makes directed reading a chore, thus effectively killing deep
reading, and consequently, deep thought.
The verdict? While
e-books and e-readers could be beneficial to reading in the long run,
no other digital tool bodes well. That does not mean we retrograde
into the past, after all, the past is always seen with rosy glasses.
The digital era is here to stay, and it is best to find a balance
such that it does not compromise on a skill set that is central to
our intellectual identity.