Let me begin by saying, I agree with this essay in principle. However, I have these fears. Most of what follows will be questions about my misgivings that will hopefully turn into a conversation.
This essay takes up a concept I struggle with, as well: the so-called decline in reading literature. And, yet, I can’t help shake the feeling that in placing blame on the failures of parents and educators and commentators, that we are somehow responsible for that decline; as in, driving away potential readers because they do not yet read Woolf or Billy Shakes or Joyce, preferring instead Colleen Hoover and Sarah J Maas, etc, and having that presented as somehow lesser. It is the implicit suggestion that those who read the classics somehow have a deeper internal world, or a more profound relationship to reality. I guess I am wondering how do we express the beauty of canonical literature while also recognizing the necessity of commercial literature to entice those potential readers to take up canonical writers? Or, is that our duty at all?
The other concern is quite literally this: the online space. In order for publications such as yours and Oliver’s and Walker’s to grow, they have to do the things which cause the algorithm to promote their work. In a way, they are forced to appeal to the corporate logic of consistency and efficiency and growth. Perhaps it is just me but that very act, the act of perpetuating the attention economy for growth, strikes me as counterintuitive (maybe even immoral) to the message of deep reading and consciousness expansion. (I don’t generally post Notes, or comment, or restack for this reason, a habit I am attempting to remedy.)
Adding onto that, the idea of the “common reader” has shifted since Johnson’s time, and even Woolf’s, when reading was the primary mode of, shall we say, entertainment. Even Bloom used the term before Web 2.0 became the standard model. The question then becomes: who is this “common reader” in our contemporary moment? And, are they the ones who are already predisposed to this type of thinking or activity and is that leaving out the more broad category of “common reader” (i.e. the readers of romantasy, etc.) we hope to reach? And, lastly, through this Web 2.0 influence do readers want to read? Or do they just want texts tailored to what they like? Or texts which can provide them a certain aesthetic in order to cultivate an image online to exploit the attention economy for monetization? Given that the social media prioritizes reaction, I’m wondering if it as a medium is sufficient to do deep thinking?
New technology has been decried since Socrates claimed writing would destroy memory. In a tangential way, if we follow the timeline, it is writing which has allowed our civilization to reach this point, this point where a recent decline in reading is a signal fire to civilizations collapse. Perhaps it is just me, but the aim is to hear someone else’s thoughts on the matter to better understand my own.
Where are we today?
This is really helpful, thanks!
Let me begin by saying, I agree with this essay in principle. However, I have these fears. Most of what follows will be questions about my misgivings that will hopefully turn into a conversation.
This essay takes up a concept I struggle with, as well: the so-called decline in reading literature. And, yet, I can’t help shake the feeling that in placing blame on the failures of parents and educators and commentators, that we are somehow responsible for that decline; as in, driving away potential readers because they do not yet read Woolf or Billy Shakes or Joyce, preferring instead Colleen Hoover and Sarah J Maas, etc, and having that presented as somehow lesser. It is the implicit suggestion that those who read the classics somehow have a deeper internal world, or a more profound relationship to reality. I guess I am wondering how do we express the beauty of canonical literature while also recognizing the necessity of commercial literature to entice those potential readers to take up canonical writers? Or, is that our duty at all?
The other concern is quite literally this: the online space. In order for publications such as yours and Oliver’s and Walker’s to grow, they have to do the things which cause the algorithm to promote their work. In a way, they are forced to appeal to the corporate logic of consistency and efficiency and growth. Perhaps it is just me but that very act, the act of perpetuating the attention economy for growth, strikes me as counterintuitive (maybe even immoral) to the message of deep reading and consciousness expansion. (I don’t generally post Notes, or comment, or restack for this reason, a habit I am attempting to remedy.)
Adding onto that, the idea of the “common reader” has shifted since Johnson’s time, and even Woolf’s, when reading was the primary mode of, shall we say, entertainment. Even Bloom used the term before Web 2.0 became the standard model. The question then becomes: who is this “common reader” in our contemporary moment? And, are they the ones who are already predisposed to this type of thinking or activity and is that leaving out the more broad category of “common reader” (i.e. the readers of romantasy, etc.) we hope to reach? And, lastly, through this Web 2.0 influence do readers want to read? Or do they just want texts tailored to what they like? Or texts which can provide them a certain aesthetic in order to cultivate an image online to exploit the attention economy for monetization? Given that the social media prioritizes reaction, I’m wondering if it as a medium is sufficient to do deep thinking?
New technology has been decried since Socrates claimed writing would destroy memory. In a tangential way, if we follow the timeline, it is writing which has allowed our civilization to reach this point, this point where a recent decline in reading is a signal fire to civilizations collapse. Perhaps it is just me, but the aim is to hear someone else’s thoughts on the matter to better understand my own.