Scan barcode
maryloulynninmi's review against another edition
4.0
Technical
This is a good book about the reading brain but it was a bit too technical for me. I loved the last letter.
This is a good book about the reading brain but it was a bit too technical for me. I loved the last letter.
tobinlopes's review against another edition
5.0
A wonderful treatise about the way we read and it's impact.
-tpl
-tpl
bupdaddy's review against another edition
3.0
While the subject matter Wolf writes about is incredibly important - her thesis is that reading from dead-tree books is a different experience from reading on screens (besides surfing the net and our smartphones, she also cited one study that showed a decline in comprehension for the same text 'twixt a paper version and an eReader version), and that we're all becoming less insightful, less critical, less immersed readers and it's a crisis - I felt kind of underwhelmed.
I mean, I think the sense that we're all getting shorter attention spans, and that reading a book is getting a tougher hurdle for many of us, is a common, intuitive one. It's probably true, and is important to look at.
But she kept saying she was going to really nail that argument, then - maybe I missed it - she switched to saying she had. And like I said, it was one study.
The book cites lots and lots and lots of studies, but only one that I caught that was making the case that we absorb less from screen reading than traditional reading.
Add to that that her writing style was...challenging. I had to force myself to finish. And I know this is my problem, not hers, but it's written as a series of letters (that is, correspondences, not characters from our alphabet, because, you know, I'm fine with books written in alphabets), which just bugged me. And she made the plural of schema schemas, which is fine - I've seen it pluralized as schema, schemas and schemata in different places - but then she made the plural of sequel sequelae. I can't even.
Her payoff, that because screens are here to stay, students should be taught two reading styles from early on, so that they can fairly effortlessly switch to what she termed 'deep reading' (the dead tree stuff) when needed and can also build up good attention spans, is provocative and probably a good idea. Again, for my money, the whole 'we can't pay attention anymore because of the interwebs and the twitter and those damn kids with their pintagram accounts' feels right, but I think it's worth proving that in more than one small study (which may have been done). I'll also acknowledge that she calls her proposal for the fix a hypothesis, which would need to be monitored to test it out.
But I'd like to see better proof it's broken.
I mean, I think the sense that we're all getting shorter attention spans, and that reading a book is getting a tougher hurdle for many of us, is a common, intuitive one. It's probably true, and is important to look at.
But she kept saying she was going to really nail that argument, then - maybe I missed it - she switched to saying she had. And like I said, it was one study.
The book cites lots and lots and lots of studies, but only one that I caught that was making the case that we absorb less from screen reading than traditional reading.
Add to that that her writing style was...challenging. I had to force myself to finish. And I know this is my problem, not hers, but it's written as a series of letters (that is, correspondences, not characters from our alphabet, because, you know, I'm fine with books written in alphabets), which just bugged me. And she made the plural of schema schemas, which is fine - I've seen it pluralized as schema, schemas and schemata in different places - but then she made the plural of sequel sequelae. I can't even.
Her payoff, that because screens are here to stay, students should be taught two reading styles from early on, so that they can fairly effortlessly switch to what she termed 'deep reading' (the dead tree stuff) when needed and can also build up good attention spans, is provocative and probably a good idea. Again, for my money, the whole 'we can't pay attention anymore because of the interwebs and the twitter and those damn kids with their pintagram accounts' feels right, but I think it's worth proving that in more than one small study (which may have been done). I'll also acknowledge that she calls her proposal for the fix a hypothesis, which would need to be monitored to test it out.
But I'd like to see better proof it's broken.
eaclapp41's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
lweihl's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent book. I think any parent with small children or a grandparent worried about all this "tech" for their grandchildren would find it quite helpful. The first third is a bit detailed with brain science but after that it's a bit more general and easy for the average person to understand.
rschmidt7's review against another edition
3.0
The central thesis should be changed a little: PLEASE KEEP YOUR YOUNG CHILDREN OFF TABLETS.
But I don’t think the author would agree with that fully. She tries to chart a middle road, basically saying that while it is very obvious from all available research that phones and tablets are harming our children, we can still manage to make children print literate almost at the same time we make them digitally literate. I don’t agree, and I think the introduction of so-called “digital literacy” should be all but delayed into late adolescence.
While the author seems to be against a prohibition of digital at early ages, I think a gentle prohibition against phones and tablets for children is feasible: my own children have never used such devices, and both began reading print when they were five. They are now being introduced to tablets and computers by their schools, but I see this as a kind of necessary evil, something to combat and counteract, but not bury our heads in the sand about. In that sense, it seems the author is basically saying the same thing; the disagreement is one of timing and age then.
Also, while I agree with much of what the author says about reading and the importance of the reading brain circuits, I didn’t find this book all that interesting. I particularly didn’t enjoy the “Circus” metaphor in the second letter. That letter was somewhat boring and difficult to follow in its details.
Still, the book is worthwhile to shine a light on the harm we’re inflicting on ourselves, our children, and our society when we allow digital devices to turn us into an aliterate nation.
But I don’t think the author would agree with that fully. She tries to chart a middle road, basically saying that while it is very obvious from all available research that phones and tablets are harming our children, we can still manage to make children print literate almost at the same time we make them digitally literate. I don’t agree, and I think the introduction of so-called “digital literacy” should be all but delayed into late adolescence.
While the author seems to be against a prohibition of digital at early ages, I think a gentle prohibition against phones and tablets for children is feasible: my own children have never used such devices, and both began reading print when they were five. They are now being introduced to tablets and computers by their schools, but I see this as a kind of necessary evil, something to combat and counteract, but not bury our heads in the sand about. In that sense, it seems the author is basically saying the same thing; the disagreement is one of timing and age then.
Also, while I agree with much of what the author says about reading and the importance of the reading brain circuits, I didn’t find this book all that interesting. I particularly didn’t enjoy the “Circus” metaphor in the second letter. That letter was somewhat boring and difficult to follow in its details.
Still, the book is worthwhile to shine a light on the harm we’re inflicting on ourselves, our children, and our society when we allow digital devices to turn us into an aliterate nation.
johnnysbookrev's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
A book about reading and how we need to start thinking more critically with our books. Taking notes, implementing what we learn, and asking questions over what we read. Our generation is losing the ability to read critically.
balletbookworm's review against another edition
3.0
This is fine. It’s better than Wolf’s previous book, IMO, in how she describes the science and research into “the reading brain.” But I can’t shake the feeling that a) it’s a bit Chicken Little/the-sky-is-falling at times, b) there’s a weirdly elitist bent to certain sections (why choose the deepest Herman Hesse deep cut for a re-reading faux experiment?), and c) if we’re worried about KIDS not being able to develop “deep reading” or the ability to critically evaluate new information due to digital media maybe we should back up and worry about the ADULTS who currently have made it very clear that they lack both abilities and grew up without digital media. That said, by the end of the book Wolf does present solutions to develop a “bi-literate” reading brain involving both digital and print reading which I find very interesting/confirms my own personal preferences.
sweeneysays's review against another edition
3.0
read for nf book club: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rebeoMw13Q