Brigitte read to me—after our discussion about Justice
Sotomayor (see last post)—a brief piece by Dan Ariely, part of Ask Ariely, in
the Wall Street Journal of today: “Do
Audiobooks Count as Reading?” Ariely reports that, for him, following an audio
book requires more attention that
reading a book—and Brigitte and I tend to agree. But our discussion ranged well
beyond that. My own reaction to any kind of streaming medium—be it a film, a
recording—is a lack of freedom. If one’s device is well equipped, one can
certainly stop in the middle of it.
But going back, be it on a disk or a tape, is a major problem. When reading a
book, it is merely a glance back—and memory is good enough so that one can go
back just the right number of pages to recall yet another passage. And books
permit you to annotate, to underline.
It then occurred to us that these real-time media are but a
electronic extension of ordinary life, where something is always moving and
cannot be stopped. The chief merit of YouTube is that it does permit back or forward tracking—and freezing of images.
Teaching people how to read, therefore, and accustoming the young to reading
books, represents something very important in the development of civilization.
It teaches sustained attention—and the value of a symbolic representation of
reality. At the same time, it increases our freedom to grasp and understand
reality, in a symbolic form. It lifts us above the unending, compelling flow.
There was a story recently of a school where every child
received a laptop and all instruction
came by way of the machine. The children love it, but the teachers have mixed
reactions. Are they sensing something missing in that interaction? Are we,
electronically armored, going back to the caves?