Based off of reading Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death and the first chapter of Nicholas Carr's The Shallows, it seems like The Shallows is almost like a sequel to Amusing Ourselves to Death. I see it this way because some points that Postman made in his book are also pointed out in Carr's book, only that Carr focuses on the internet, which is world today, when Postman focuses on the television, which is the world a few decades ago. One of the points that both Postman and Carr make in their books is that both the internet and the television has been so popular to the point that people don't want to use books anymore.
In Postman's book, television became more popular for being humorous and understandable when it comes to informing us about world events and education. People found it more convenient because each event informed in the news was informed in a short time (around 30 seconds to one minute as Postman explained in the book). People also found it more convenient to watch educational programs because they inform the audience in a way that they could understand quickly and not ask questions. This made people prefer television than books, newspapers, and textbooks because people don't feel like reading long, descriptive, and thoughtful context.
In Carr's book, he explains that he finds the internet more useful than books because the internet is much more convenient than books, such as publishing articles in a few minutes rather than waiting for your book to be published in a few months. Also, Carr finds context from the internet much more understandable to read than the context from books. Because Carr uses the internet more than books, it made Carr have difficulty in trying to read an entire book. Carr can't read books like he use to anymore because he is more used to reading context from the internet than from books.It turns out that many people have this problem, as Carr names some people he knows who also can't focus on reading a book anymore.
Carr's points that are made in his book is basically saying that the problems that Postman pointed out in his book are still continuing to this day, only that the internet is the new medium that takes over books, just like how the television also took over books in its time. This makes me think that new technology in the future is still going to take over books, and someday there will be a time that a certain technology is going to makes books extinct.
Liliana Carrera
Sure maybe paper books, but you could never makes books disappear unless we were under a global dictatorship. In fact we're currently reading more books then we have ever. I understand what Carr is saying that he likes articles better than books and that it's more convenient to do than right a book, but a book is a commitment. A book means you want to pull through with this, that'd you go extra steps to ensure it getting into people's hands. It's also corporeal so it makes it feel more important. I personally hate digital books over physical copies. How can a book be a great page turner if you can't turn the pages. It's practically the most satisfying thing to do when you read the book. I'm also weird and I like how books smell. I don't read as often as I think I should, but I still enjoy it and I always use physical copies when I can.
ReplyDeleteLater on in the book, Carr goes into more detail about how current technology today seems to be replacing books. I agree with your interpretation of Carr's points, as I do believe that technology such as the Kindle and apps such as WattPad or Yarn can lead to the extinction of physical text. However, I also agree with Mason above, as novels and articles are still going to be a thing. People frequently write novels online because obtaining a publisher, an editor, and a literary agent can be difficult. With the technology we have today, it is easy for people to read a story you've created online with just a simple search.
ReplyDelete