Changes in the Nature of Reading?

[Jack7]

Will Social Media and New Information Delivery Systems (such as Kindle) not only change how people read, but what they read?


Being a bit of a Technophile myself I enjoy much of the new information delivery systems that have been recently developed, everything from Twitter and Facebook and Google+ on the macro level, to handheld electronic readers on the micro level.

However one thing that bothers me, as the pace increases to consume more and more information content from what is basically technological and electronic sources, is this altering not only how we read, but what we read?

Personally I think that all of these content delivery methods are at best, in their very most primordial and infantile stages, compared to what they could potentially deliver. As a matter of fact I'm working on a couple of inventions to augment current delivery systems so that much richer content can be delivered by these various systems. So I think the untapped potential is enormous.

On the other hand I have noticed a peculiar trend among many of those who use these devices and methods as their primary sources of content delivery. They (the users) are always ready and eager to get and read the next new thing, but never use their Kindles (and forget about social media, it almost never delivers anything more impressive than short informational bursts or perusal opinions) or similar devices to read Homer, or a book on science, or much of anything aside from: a new release, an instructional book, or an entertainment book.

There is nothing wrong with any of those things, but that's all they use their devices for, and more importantly it is now all they read. If it is not geared to their particular technological outlet, or is not a new release, or is not a new entertainment release, it's all they read. And I mean all they read. Several have commented to me that their devices are so convenient why read books? Which is fine by me, but then again it's not just changing how they read (the method) it's also changing what they read (the actual content). They only read new stuff geared to their technology.

Apparently the technology leads to an impulse, intentional or sub-conscious, to only read those things somehow associated with their technology. And great works of the past (unless there is a movie tie-in) just aren't associated in their minds with their technology (even though I'm assuming many great works of the past can now be accessed via their technology).

This bothers me. Now it is entirely possible that as the technology develops this problem will be self-alleviating because of content improvements (for instance Beowulf may soon be delivered in such a format that it is more exciting to read off your e-book reader than by an illustrated book-form), or advances in memory and storage capacity make true librarying possible, or because degradation problems are resolved, etc.

But for now I've noticed that reading devices are changing not only how people read but what they read as well. Anyone else notice this?

 

[Mark CMG]

Will Social Media and New Information Delivery Systems (such as Kindle) not only change how people read, but what they read?

Being a bit of a Technophile myself I enjoy much of the new information delivery systems that have been recently developed, everything from Twitter and Facebook and Google+ on the macro level, to handheld electronic readers on the micro level.

However one thing that bothers me, as the pace increases to consume more and more information content from what is basically technological and electronic sources, is this altering not only how we read, but what we read?

Personally I think that all of these content delivery methods are at best, in their very most primordial and infantile stages, compared to what they could potentially deliver. As a matter of fact I'm working on a couple of inventions to augment current delivery systems so that much richer content can be delivered by these various systems. So I think the untapped potential is enormous.

On the other hand I have noticed a peculiar trend among many of those who use these devices and methods as their primary sources of content delivery. They (the users) are always ready and eager to get and read the next new thing, but never use their Kindles (and forget about social media, it almost never delivers anything more impressive than short informational bursts or perusal opinions) or similar devices to read Homer, or a book on science, or much of anything aside from: a new release, an instructional book, or an entertainment book.

There is nothing wrong with any of those things, but that's all they use their devices for, and more importantly it is now all they read. If it is not geared to their particular technological outlet, or is not a new release, or is not a new entertainment release, it's all they read. And I mean all they read. Several have commented to me that their devices are so convenient why read books? Which is fine by me, but then again it's not just changing how they read (the method) it's also changing what they read (the actual content). They only read new stuff geared to their technology.

Apparently the technology leads to an impulse, intentional or sub-conscious, to only read those things somehow associated with their technology. And great works of the past (unless there is a movie tie-in) just aren't associated in their minds with their technology (even though I'm assuming many great works of the past can now be accessed via their technology).

This bothers me. Now it is entirely possible that as the technology develops this problem will be self-alleviating because of content improvements (for instance Beowulf may soon be delivered in such a format that it is more exciting to read off your e-book reader than by an illustrated book-form), or advances in memory and storage capacity make true librarying possible, or because degradation problems are resolved, etc

But for now I've noticed that reading devices are changing not only how people read but what they read as well. Anyone else notice this?

New media has allowed me to easily adjust the font of your post.


[Tosh]And, for that, we thank you.[/Tosh]

 

[Cor Azer]

I've noticed it in my own behavior.

I like books, but with few exceptions, I've not been reading near as often as I purchase them - my backlog is near a dozen, and there are more I'm eager to buy. Instead, I find myself reading stuff on the 'Net - short stories and various geek news articles - because, reasonable or not, I feel that they're more transient, and that if I don't read them now, they'll be buried under the weight of Internet dross, unlike my books, which sit safely on my bookshelf, easily found should I ever need them.

 

[Umbran]

But for now I've noticed that reading devices are changing not only how people read but what they read as well. Anyone else notice this?

I don't think you can identify such a trend unless you look not only at what they are reading on the new device, but what they were reading before they got the device. If they weren't going to buy a print copy of Homer, failing to get an electronic copy does not count as a change in what that person is reading.

How many people were reading Homer to begin with, really? It isn't like the classics have ever been modern best-sellers. The New York Times Best Seller lists have always been populated with new content, not reprints of old content. Folks were going for new content before the devices, so going to new content on the devices is not a change in behavior.

 

[Mark CMG]

I know of many friends who are DLing free classics for e-readers, and reading them, when they would not have otherwise sought such volumes nor read them.

 

[Deset Gled]

They are always ready and eager to get and read the next new thing, but never use their Kindles (...) or similar devices to read Homer, or a book on science, or much of anything aside from: a new release, an instructional book, or an entertainment book.

Actually, Jack7, I believe your conclusions here are completely backwards. People are now downloading the classics at a dramatically higher rate than they ever bought these books as physical copies.

Free classics are always prominent on the Amazon's Kindle Best Sellers list. Titles like The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Alice In Wonderland, The Art of War, and various other classics have lived in the top 100 downloads for a darn long time. Longer than any new release. You'll also notice that 5 of the top 20 books on the Kindle Free Bestsellers list are non-fiction. I myself have downloaded plenty of classic novels and non-fiction books that I never would have read if I had to pay for them.

By providing free access to material, new media like the Kindle has dramatically increased readership of the literary classics and non-fiction. However, it generally shows up as a consistent, steady pace of downloads rather than huge blips of popularity.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, Jack7, I believe your conclusions here are completely backwards. People are now downloading the classics at a dramatically higher rate than they ever bought these books as physical copies.

Anecdotally - my wife just got a Nook e-Reader. The first place she went for content was Project Gutenberg.

Less anecdotally - for the 30 days following December 20th, 2010, Project Gutenberg saw about 4.5 million eBook downloads. They say that's up about 900,000 from the previous month - they tend to see an increase around the holidays due to people giving eReaders as gifts, I suppose.

 

[Crothian]

By providing free access to material, new media like the Kindle has dramatically increased readership of the literary classics and non-fiction. However, it generally shows up as a consistent, steady pace of downloads rather than huge blips of popularity.

I find this a bit odd because the classics have always been available for free at the local library. It might be that the devices are just that much more convenient or because they are new reading has reached a new level of acceptability.

 

[Jack7]

I've noticed it in my own behavior.

I like books, but with few exceptions, I've not been reading near as often as I purchase them - my backlog is near a dozen, and there are more I'm eager to buy. Instead, I find myself reading stuff on the 'Net - short stories and various geek news articles - because, reasonable or not, I feel that they're more transient, and that if I don't read them now, they'll be buried under the weight of Internet dross, unlike my books, which sit safely on my bookshelf, easily found should I ever need them.

Interesting.

I don't think you can identify such a trend unless you look not only at what they are reading on the new device, but what they were reading before they got the device. If they weren't going to buy a print copy of Homer, failing to get an electronic copy does not count as a change in what that person is reading.

How many people were reading Homer to begin with, really? It isn't like the classics have ever been modern best-sellers. The New York Times Best Seller lists have always been populated with new content, not reprints of old content. Folks were going for new content before the devices, so going to new content on the devices is not a change in behavior.

Well, I'll give ya an example from my own experience. I have buddies, a few in particular, and we used to read a lot of different kinds of stuff. William James, Henry James, Hemingway, Aeschylus (my favorite Greek writer), Russians (I preferred Tolstoy, he Dostoevsky - we had some good arguments about Russians), Goethe, etc. We (and other buddies I had) used to get together and hang out or go out to eat and argue over what we were reading and who are favorite writers were, etc.

(And yeah, we'd argue recent writers, like Donaldson or Niven or Herbert back then too, but we'd also argue psychology, and literature, and poetry, and science, and art and religion, and so forth.)

We had some great discussion and arguments and it was a lot of fun. Quotes would fly and Virgils would weep. But recently I've noticed I'm one of the few people who is still reading books. And that's fine by me, but most of my buddies, when I see or talk with them, and most of the younger people I know using Kindle or the internet (for reading) are reading much shorter stuff, and nothing like what they used to read. It's pretty much all new stuff now or tech stuff or professional stuff. (For sentence a lot of my friends now read pop psychology books, whereas before they were reading Jung or Adler.)

So it's not a change in behavior as far as the NYT bestseller lists, but I have noticed a change in the reading habit behaviors of those I associate with or know. (I'm not counting kids or young people as changing of course, they may very well read whatever is assigned them on their Kindles. Or whatever other device they're packing. And they're too young to note a change in behavior, but they don't seem to be reading anything more than recent release stuff to begin with. My daughters read literature, but they have to cause they're homeschooled. But they don't talk about it with their friends of the same age because the friends don't read it.)

Of course this situation could also be because my buddies and I are a lot older and don't see each other that much anymore. It could be that when we were younger it was just the spur of getting together and having nice arguments and debates that sorta pushed us on in this respect. That's a possibility I've entertained too. Now, not being able to see each other all that often, maybe there is less impetus to read literature or whatever else we liked to discuss. Though I still read a lot. And they do too, for the most part, just very different content.

But my kids don't really have anyone to talk about Shakespeare with their own age. Or even Sherlock Holmes. Not like I did at that age. Heck my daughter was shocked to learn that almost no-one her age at church knew who Daniel Boone was. But not as shocked as me, cause I live in the South. (History is another thing I don't see people reading much anymore.)

I know of many friends who are DLing free classics for e-readers, and reading them, when they would not have otherwise sought such volumes nor read them.

Actually, Jack7, I believe your conclusions here are completely backwards. People are now downloading the classics at a dramatically higher rate than they ever bought these books as physical copies.

Free classics are always prominent on the Amazon's Kindle Best Sellers list. Titles like The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Alice In Wonderland, The Art of War, and various other classics have lived in the top 100 downloads for a darn long time.

Anecdotally - my wife just got a Nook e-Reader. The first place she went for content was Project Gutenberg.

Less anecdotally - for the 30 days following December 20th, 2010, Project Gutenberg saw about 4.5 million eBook downloads. They say that's up about 900,000 from the previous month - they tend to see an increase around the holidays due to people giving eReaders as gifts, I suppose.

I'm glad to hear that. Maybe it's just my neck of the woods, or the folks I know. And maybe the problem will be self-correcting. It's encouraging to hear that.


For those of you who own electronic readers. How many volumes can you store on your device? Can you accumulate a whole library on there? And do you accumulate any, or even a lot of books you never read, or have yet to read?

I've read every book in my personal (physical) library. Just wondering if it is customary to get books for an e-Library you never read, or that you intend to read later?Typically I buy a book for my physical library only if I intend to read it right after I buy it.


And for that matter, if you have a reader do you still bother accumulating volumes for your (physical) library?

And thanks for your replies guys. This has given me some component design ideas for my own device.

 

[Jack7]

By the way I've noticed that some of ya are hinting around that you don't like the font I'm using. I use Dark Courier because I'm a writer and all of my documents, email programs, editing programs, etc. are automatically set to Dark Courier for editorial and submission purposes.

So I'm not gonna change that because it's too convenient for me as a writer and for my editors and clients to read. However upon examining my posts Dark Courier does look awful weak as a font on this site screen (compared to the way it prints on paper). So to try and make things easier on you guys, if it bothers you, I'm gonna try and remember to change the font size to 3 so that it'll be easier to read. And hope that helps.

Goodnight.