Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bioniclib's review against another edition
5.0
I had read, somewhere, that the brain retains info differently on a screen than it does on a printed page. This book unpacks that thought.
The brain is an amazingly complex:
"...there are as many connections in a single cubic centimeter of brain tissues as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.” 16.
and plastic thingie:
"Most important for this discussion, however, plasticity also underlies why the reading-brain circuit is inherently malleable (read changeable) and influenced by key environmental factors: specifically, what it reads (both the particular writing system and the content), how it reads (the particular medium, such as print or screen, and its effects on the way we read), and how it is formed (methods of instruction)." (18)
In her previous book, Proust and the Squid, I learned that there's no single area in the brain responsible for reading. In this book, I learned just how much of the brain we use to read:
"In essence, the combination of these three principles forms the basis of what few of us would ever suspect: a reading circuit that incorporates input from two hemispheres, four lobes in each hemisphere (frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital), and all five layers of the brain (from the uppermost telencephalon and adjacent diencephalon below it; to the middle layers of the mesencephalon; to the lower levels of the metencephalon and myelencephalon). Anyone who still believes the archaic canard that we use only a tiny portion of our brains hasn’t yet become aware of what we do when we read." (20)
That staggeringly complex process of reading is also why a screen isn't as good to read on:
"reading isn’t only about our young children’s brains. It involves their whole bodies; they see, smell, hear, and feel books." (133)
Being able to involve the entire body isn't just kids stuff, either. We all do it. And one of the things we gain from it is knowledge of how people other than our tribe lives and this knowledge can help us develop empathy. But the skimming our brains fall back on when reading on a screen isn't suited for development of empathy and the reliance on Google and other external memory sources means deep reading and critical thinking isn't well developed when reading on a screen.
The good news is, as evidenced by Ms. Wolf's experiment on herself, the detrimental effects of screen reading isn't irreversible.
The second half of the book details her suggestions on how to prevent this from happening to the children of today and tomorrow. And, no, it does not mean we should shuck all digital reading.
I really can't say enough about this book.
The brain is an amazingly complex:
"...there are as many connections in a single cubic centimeter of brain tissues as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.” 16.
and plastic thingie:
"Most important for this discussion, however, plasticity also underlies why the reading-brain circuit is inherently malleable (read changeable) and influenced by key environmental factors: specifically, what it reads (both the particular writing system and the content), how it reads (the particular medium, such as print or screen, and its effects on the way we read), and how it is formed (methods of instruction)." (18)
In her previous book, Proust and the Squid, I learned that there's no single area in the brain responsible for reading. In this book, I learned just how much of the brain we use to read:
"In essence, the combination of these three principles forms the basis of what few of us would ever suspect: a reading circuit that incorporates input from two hemispheres, four lobes in each hemisphere (frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital), and all five layers of the brain (from the uppermost telencephalon and adjacent diencephalon below it; to the middle layers of the mesencephalon; to the lower levels of the metencephalon and myelencephalon). Anyone who still believes the archaic canard that we use only a tiny portion of our brains hasn’t yet become aware of what we do when we read." (20)
That staggeringly complex process of reading is also why a screen isn't as good to read on:
"reading isn’t only about our young children’s brains. It involves their whole bodies; they see, smell, hear, and feel books." (133)
Being able to involve the entire body isn't just kids stuff, either. We all do it. And one of the things we gain from it is knowledge of how people other than our tribe lives and this knowledge can help us develop empathy. But the skimming our brains fall back on when reading on a screen isn't suited for development of empathy and the reliance on Google and other external memory sources means deep reading and critical thinking isn't well developed when reading on a screen.
The good news is, as evidenced by Ms. Wolf's experiment on herself, the detrimental effects of screen reading isn't irreversible.
The second half of the book details her suggestions on how to prevent this from happening to the children of today and tomorrow. And, no, it does not mean we should shuck all digital reading.
I really can't say enough about this book.
villainous_hoopdreams's review against another edition
2.0
Wolf makes good points about the way reading digitally changes our processing and ability to attend (Covid taught us all about that whether we were ready for that lesson or not), but fundamentally I disagree with her view that young people have less empathy. I hope she has revised that view in this years since this was published.
I also think students are more “biliterate” than she is giving them credit for. There’s a lot of code switching going on, and my general sense is that students are pretty impatient with adults who haven’t noticed that already.
Overall I found her reference points and literature dated and a little elitist (Proust, Middlemarch, and Derrida, oy vey), and maybe it speaks to the speed with which this change is happening, but I found her points either pretty bland or pearl-clutchy.
Overall, like Proust and the Squid, it was repetitive, circuitous, fails to strike a good balance between its elements, and would have been better as an article.
Suggested snarky title for this review: Boomer, Calm Down.
I also think students are more “biliterate” than she is giving them credit for. There’s a lot of code switching going on, and my general sense is that students are pretty impatient with adults who haven’t noticed that already.
Overall I found her reference points and literature dated and a little elitist (Proust, Middlemarch, and Derrida, oy vey), and maybe it speaks to the speed with which this change is happening, but I found her points either pretty bland or pearl-clutchy.
Overall, like Proust and the Squid, it was repetitive, circuitous, fails to strike a good balance between its elements, and would have been better as an article.
Suggested snarky title for this review: Boomer, Calm Down.
calderinv's review against another edition
5.0
Wolf presents a deep and powerful argument for how we can navigate the changing literacy landscape and for why we need good reader for a sound society.
wicked_ginger's review against another edition
3.0
I have mixed feelings about this one.
Firs of all, I need to apologise that I may sound dumb to the author (I'm not English native speaker), just because I have this idea from the book that she appreciates people who read big books and use big words. And although I enjoyed big books sometimes, I don't know how to structure my writing in English to sound as educated as her writing.
I agree with the main point, because she presented a lot of research and made valid arguments. People are distracted with digital media much more (I'm writing this during the time when Apple introduced those smart goggles, which looks ridiculous and presents terrifying picture of our future) and can concentrate much less, either to the dialogue or reading consistently and thoroughly. And I can also see the potential of the digital media when using right, so I'm thankful she included that in the last chapters.
But I didn't like the form, how Wolf presented her thoughts. She tries it very casually by writing letters to the readers, then she hints some more science-y language and then she pivot to something like philosophical monologue. I was confused by this changes in style and its inconsistency and, frankly, I couldn't sometimes focus on her words.
She also talks a lot about reading classics and how todays youth can't get through it because it is too complex and too long. Well, I remember my own time at school when we had to read it and how I really liked some classics and hated other ones. And it was not because of the dense language or style, it was because some were still relevant to me as a young reader and a woman, while others tried to be and failed. Also, I liked the themes of some more than the others. And that's fine, it's normal not to like all of the books and authors.
I also didn't quite understand what she was talking about when she described reading books and bettering our empathy and critical thinking. Did she mean all books? Or just classics? Because she sounded like she meant only classics and other genres including non fiction literature were out of the question.
Wolf also describes learning from external sources and how it's sometimes bad, when you don't have any internal knowledge. Ok, but for me to possess internal knowledge, I need to get it from external sources. So is reading non fiction bad, because I depend on some author to just explain everything to me? Like this book for example? I didn't get this point.
At the end, she touched the topic of democracy and here is where she lost me completely. She argues that we all should see the other point of view and try to understand it, be more empathetic and open to dialogue. And reading can help facilitate this. I understand it if you're talking about ambiguous or controversial things where there is no clear line that sets this as good and that as bad. But what about neo nazis? White supremacists? Genocide? Dictatorships? Sexual abuse? Should I really hear out people who defend these atrocities? Should there be absolute freedom of speech for people who use hate speech towards minorities, queer people or women? Should I really be like "oh yeah, you make some very interesting points"? I'm sorry, but the freedom of speech isn't absolute, not even in democracies, and democratic societies can't give voice to hate and violence. Her view that reading can make any person into an educated compassionate one is very idealistic and maybe a bit naïve. Like, for example, Stalin liked to read too.
One last thing I'll mention. Wolf made an experiment on herself because she realised that her work took her away from slow and deep reading experience. But she just described a normal job. To read and write emails, to read short articles or headlines just because there's so much information around us and she as a scientist needs to know as much as possible. It was her own mistake that she didn't find the time for slow reading.
Overall, I think that this could work for me if it was written in a different way, possibly more like a popular science book, not this mashup of styles. And also, if the author was sometimes more specific in her thoughts.
Firs of all, I need to apologise that I may sound dumb to the author (I'm not English native speaker), just because I have this idea from the book that she appreciates people who read big books and use big words. And although I enjoyed big books sometimes, I don't know how to structure my writing in English to sound as educated as her writing.
I agree with the main point, because she presented a lot of research and made valid arguments. People are distracted with digital media much more (I'm writing this during the time when Apple introduced those smart goggles, which looks ridiculous and presents terrifying picture of our future) and can concentrate much less, either to the dialogue or reading consistently and thoroughly. And I can also see the potential of the digital media when using right, so I'm thankful she included that in the last chapters.
But I didn't like the form, how Wolf presented her thoughts. She tries it very casually by writing letters to the readers, then she hints some more science-y language and then she pivot to something like philosophical monologue. I was confused by this changes in style and its inconsistency and, frankly, I couldn't sometimes focus on her words.
She also talks a lot about reading classics and how todays youth can't get through it because it is too complex and too long. Well, I remember my own time at school when we had to read it and how I really liked some classics and hated other ones. And it was not because of the dense language or style, it was because some were still relevant to me as a young reader and a woman, while others tried to be and failed. Also, I liked the themes of some more than the others. And that's fine, it's normal not to like all of the books and authors.
I also didn't quite understand what she was talking about when she described reading books and bettering our empathy and critical thinking. Did she mean all books? Or just classics? Because she sounded like she meant only classics and other genres including non fiction literature were out of the question.
Wolf also describes learning from external sources and how it's sometimes bad, when you don't have any internal knowledge. Ok, but for me to possess internal knowledge, I need to get it from external sources. So is reading non fiction bad, because I depend on some author to just explain everything to me? Like this book for example? I didn't get this point.
At the end, she touched the topic of democracy and here is where she lost me completely. She argues that we all should see the other point of view and try to understand it, be more empathetic and open to dialogue. And reading can help facilitate this. I understand it if you're talking about ambiguous or controversial things where there is no clear line that sets this as good and that as bad. But what about neo nazis? White supremacists? Genocide? Dictatorships? Sexual abuse? Should I really hear out people who defend these atrocities? Should there be absolute freedom of speech for people who use hate speech towards minorities, queer people or women? Should I really be like "oh yeah, you make some very interesting points"? I'm sorry, but the freedom of speech isn't absolute, not even in democracies, and democratic societies can't give voice to hate and violence. Her view that reading can make any person into an educated compassionate one is very idealistic and maybe a bit naïve. Like, for example, Stalin liked to read too.
One last thing I'll mention. Wolf made an experiment on herself because she realised that her work took her away from slow and deep reading experience. But she just described a normal job. To read and write emails, to read short articles or headlines just because there's so much information around us and she as a scientist needs to know as much as possible. It was her own mistake that she didn't find the time for slow reading.
Overall, I think that this could work for me if it was written in a different way, possibly more like a popular science book, not this mashup of styles. And also, if the author was sometimes more specific in her thoughts.
marcynewman's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
I picked up this book because I want to understand the neuroscience behind reading. I want to know how it affects the brain and how we are damaging that by spending too much time on screens. The first part of the book did engage with this aspect, but it increasingly deviated into how to fix society and the damage caused to society by not ensuring we have enough deep readers from an early age. Unfortunately, the book is extremely American-centric so much of that part didn't really apply to my context (I live in India). I also don't think that the whole epistolary form works here. It's just a gimmick - it's not like these are really letters in any structural or literary sense of the form.
pagesfromhome's review against another edition
Absolutely on my brain power and not on the book! I actually really enjoyed the small bit I got through, it was dense, but still felt accessible which is hard to do in a nonfiction that deals with so much science. But I’m just not in the brain space for nonfiction at the moment so DNFing for now and planning to come back to this one.
drpiotrowski's review against another edition
1.0
As a digital literacies scholar, I wanted to like this book more than I did. The book takes a very narrow view of literacy when we need to consider the affordances and constraints of different technology tools, modes, and media. The book offers little more than handwringing about technology’s impact on attention and memory that go back to Plato.