My son has reached an age when he loves to get my goat. Take the word “balls” and what a nine-year-old boy can get up to with a Christmas tree:
“Look at these balls!” He holds up two red ornaments.
“Yep. Those are balls,” I say.
“Let’s hang the balls on the tree!” A storm of giggling.
This is normal and hilarious. But when I get annoyed at his subversiveness, I've learned to pay attention. And when I catch myself thinking what the heck is wrong with him?, I know he’s pushed a personal button I need to think about.
His latest button push, in fact, involves everything my professional life is based on. It’s about books and reading and how we take in information. It's about the literal buttons I push on my Kindle.
While this is not the first time my son's reading habits have set me brooding, I've been irritated with him for reasons it's taken me awhile to untangle.
He doesn’t follow narratives the way I do: He leaps to the end of a story first. He’ll skip the openings of almost any movie on DVD, hopping right to the exciting parts. In this, he’s far more in tune with the continuing transformation in media than I am—and it scares me, I've realized.
The new media world is changing to accommodate empowered readers. I know all this stuff, but I can’t help bemoaning that we read differently on a screen. We jump from link to link, mixing and matching information sources. We take in stories a differently.
Meanwhile, I'm at odds with myself: I love long narratives told in a specific sequence, in which the writer chooses when to reveal information to readers. This is the purpose of a plot, especially in novels: It’s a chain of explanation. It doesn’t have to be a chronological sequence or even linear, but there is a beginning, middle, and end determined by the author.
The generational difference in reading styles isn't a simple matter of liking books. Since third grade, my son has been obsessed with Rick Riordan’s series about Percy Jackson and the Greek gods, starting with The Lightning Thief. He’s read them all several times, by himself and with me aloud. He’s also torn through Riordan’s first two books in the Kane Chronicles series, which are based on Egyptian mythology.
But when it comes to getting him to try a new book, he balks. I’ve nudged. I’ve pored through library listings. I’ve asked other parents and librarians for ideas. Nothing takes. All he wants to read are books by Rick Riordan.
So, when we visited the public library yesterday, a hot little flame burned inside me with every enticing title I brought him—Brandon Mull’s Fablehaven, Mary Norton's The Borrowers, Cornelia Funke’s Igraine the Brave—and he kept saying no, I don’t think so, boring.
What the heck is wrong with him?
I held it in check, trying to let him make his own choices. I do understand loving a book so much that you’ll read it over and over. I also understand that a book like The Borrowers that once delighted me may now seem dated.
Yet my son’s attitude challenges my core notions about why reading is pleasurable. When I was his age, I’d plunge from one series to another, tearing through them all in search of gems, but always reading, reading, reading—and finishing—every narrative, because I loved how stories unfolded. Any story.
For my boy, it seems to be about immersion in a particular fictional world or character’s point of view. He enters this world and moves around at will. He wants to create his own version of the narrative—to tell it his way.
And maybe it’s not just him.
Last weekend, I finished Jeffrey Eugenides’s The Marriage Plot on my Kindle, one of the first times I’ve let myself inhale a literary novel on a screen. I loved it; I even nursed happy hopes that I could download more books of its heft before my next airline flight.
But much as I enjoyed The Marriage Plot, the experience of reading it on the Kindle didn’t feel like reading a novel. I kept clicking buttons, immersing myself in the stories of particular characters. I kept reminding myself of the larger plot. Then I found I didn’t care.
While some of this is conveyed by Eugenides’s narrative—he is riffing on semiotics and the whole notion of traditional plot, after all—I’m pretty sure my experience of The Marriage Plot would have been different if I’d read the print book. For one thing, when I first opened the e-version on my Kindle, it went straight to Chapter One. I had to click back to find the epigraphs, the Table of Contents, the title page.
With a Kindle or a Nook, we don’t hold a physical object in our hands, with pages that are meant to be turned in one direction. We get lost or immersed in the narrative, in personal voices, in brief anecdotes. That’s what hooks us these days.
This isn’t a shocking revelation, and I doubt it’s truly a bad thing. Kids are learning to read in a new way—so what? They’re reading. My son is reading.
But I’m reading in a new way, too. Jettisoning narrative sequence disturbs me—I can’t help it—it feels akin to losing the thread of meaning in my own life. It’s not my son’s determined new way of hyperlinking around his brain that’s scary; it’s the fact that I’m doing it myself.
Afternote
I have no right to complain, of course. I shouldn’t draw big conclusions based on one child who’s the highly verbal son of a writer and an academic. He’s grown up surrounded by books. He’s an adoptee, which means he’s known for a long time that his isn’t the typical children’s story. And he’s stubborn, my boy. That’s who he is.
He loves what he loves—and it’s a marvelous thing. When Rick Riordan’s latest book, The Son of Neptune, came out this fall, my son insisted we go to the nearest book signing. We waited in line for hours. He got thirty seconds, max, to pass his copy under the master’s hand for an illegible scrawl. But my son had practiced what he wanted to say.“You’re my favorite author in the world!” he burst out.
Rick Riordan smiled. “I’m very honored.”
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
STATHI STATHI
nilesite
Anna Voy
Cynthia Neale
David Biddle
KC Redding-Gonzalez
Salon.com
Comments
rated
Hyblaen and Jaime -- you're very right to point to all the good reasons for him to skip ahead and do it himself. It's both wonderful and scary/sad to a mom.
Shiral -- I've gotten used to the Kindle screen, too, but I've had such an on-again-off-again thing with it ever since I got it several years ago. The Marriage Plot really is the first major novel I've read on it--and I was struck by how strangely (or differently) immersive the experience was for me. And yet, when my family heads to Asia this spring, I'll be taking the Kindle. I also believe in traveling light.
John--you read more books? Really? Fascinating (as Mr. Spock might say).
Sounds like me at his age. :o)
We get lost or immersed in the narrative, in personal voices, in brief anecdotes. That’s what hooks us these days.
Very astute observation. This is why I believe blogging, in general, and Open Salon, in particular, are so popular.
But I’m reading in a new way, too. Jettisoning narrative sequence disturbs me—I can’t help it—it feels akin to losing the thread of meaning in my own life. It’s not my son’s determined new way of hyperlinking around his brain that’s scary; it’s the fact that I’m doing it myself.
Accepting and/or changing a new (different) perception and exploring are indeed scary in the beginning.
Thank you for sharing this lovely journey. Seasons' greetings!
R♥
Seasons Greetings to you, too -- to everyone!
One of the main purposes of description in a novel is to manipulate my emotions, and set me up for the next dialogue or action, and I find most descriptions are too detailed and lengthy bordering on the irrelevant.
Good writing for me keeps moving without the need for telling me about the local weather among other things.
So, your son has already figured out how to avoid being manipulated by authors who attempt to control the reader, and that is good.
The great promise of the personal computer was that we could do it all with one all-purpose tool. The great failure is the recent proliferation of limited and handicapped tools that can only do one idiot task. One toy to read a book, another to read web pages, another to watch TV - all of them costing ridiculous amounts of money.
The future is dead. It was killed by the piles of junk from Sharper Image.
I wonder if your son would heed a recommendation or two from Rick Riordan himself for extra-curricular reading material?
As to the unexception --indeed, universal complaint that the Next Generation is abandoning all that's good and holy in the world, I can tell you that my kids hated reading in general when they were younger. The only thing my son would read was my car's owners' manual. Now he;s reading George F Kennan biography and counting the days until the next installment of Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography comes out. If your kid has gotten excited about reading, he's find the next book. And the next -- and the next, Undue attachment to a just finished work is a symptom of the true reader, actually. I had a hard time moving on from books as diverse as The Lord of the Rings and Gone With the Wind ... and I found both of those epics when I was in my forties.
If you are taught to read (or watch or look or listen) in a way that will maximize both your appreciation and, one hopes, the creator's intent, it shouldn't matter what device is used. If more people are reading because of Kindle (I don't honestly know if that's true, but I can hope so), then I will be thrilled! If we're saving trees (no evidence of that either but wouldn't it be nice), even better.
Still, I think part of what's going on with this transformation is that the definition of "better" is up for grabs. That's why I feel fear (and occasional awe), not just annoyance or anger.
Neutron -- I read a lot of literary stuff on my laptop and desktop because I run an online magazine. You may be right that a dedicated reading device like a Kindle is just a dumbed-down laptop -- and yet, I like the fact that my Kindle screen isn't backlit and that my now-ancient model isn't in color. Stripping out unnecessary frills actually matters to me.
Chicken Maaan -- You are very right about the broken narrative in postmodern novels, which in fact did and do strive for what the experience of reading a novel on a Kindle (or any screen) evokes, at least for me. As I was writing this post, I had in mind an interview with Jennifer Egan that we ran a few months ago in Talking Writing, in which she talks about how she broke up the narrative chronology of A Visit from the Goon Squad--but she did so very deliberately. She even bemoaned the fact that there's an app out there that allows readers to shuffle the chapters in Goon Squad any way they want.
All of which brings up the fascinating question of whether narratives are now becoming joint projects between author and reader.
Steven -- Yes, my son's obsession with Rick Riordan marks a truly dedicated reader and a creative world inner-world builder. I am struck by his different style of reading, but what I was really getting at here is my own misinterpretation. The annoyance I initially felt is like the shadow to "these kids today"--and realizing my own kneejerk response made me understand just what it is that scares me -- but not my son, thank goodness.
Reading and thinking in narrative sequence is an illusion. Nothing new there. That space/time is not linear is not new. Reading is a means of experiencing space/time, as is everything else we do.
Think of a mandala. It is a pictoral representation of space/time and tells a story that can be regarded as narrative, or spatial. The better way of re cognizing the information depends on how the viewer's mind works. Spatial is disorienting for the linear-minded. Linear is too confining for the spatially minded.
Books are the same way. Without getting into the whole time/space thing, the Woods speed reading folks teach one to read the beginning and end of a book first then get familiar with it by flipping through it, so that when they read, the point is to understand. That approach allows the reader to put the text in a larger context (the beginning can be related to the end; there's even more time to make connections with other sources of information).
Rest assured, if your son is like mine. My son is an electronic reader. He rarely reads in a linear fashion, but has penetrating insights into what he reads. But where he really stands out is in the questions that spin off his reading, because when he reads online, he chases down many rabbit holes to get the questions that are means of broadening the context of what he's reading.
That broadening of the reading experience is done with books in what used to be the domain of scholars. But in the network, its much easier to do. Another instance of the democratic nature of the network.
Marshall McLuhan was appalled at the onset of electronic media and you might find some of his musings of interest. A guy named Copeland recently published an imaginative biography on MM, which is a good introduction. For those interested in diving in the deep end of a mind fed by two major arteries (the vast majority of us operate on the single carburetor model) Understanding Media by MM could change your relationship with media of all types.
And that is interesting. Thanks for your reminder about McLuhan's writing and other suggestions. I may just chase down a few rabbit holes myself!
p.s. I just bought The Marriage Plot. Glad to hear you liked it.
What if reading off screens is not all it's cracked up to be?
by Dan E. Bloom
Imagine a news article datelined ''Boston, Massachusetts'' in the year
2025,
headlined ''MRI brain imaging lab studies differences in screen, paper
reading,'' that might begin like this:
"Ellen Marker studies reading. But not off screens or in
paper books.
Her research is done in a Boston laboratory.
''The pioneering neuroscientist analyzes brains in their reading
states, hoping to understand the differences between reading
on screens and reading on paper surfaces.
"Marker has a hunch that her studies will later show that reading on paper
is superior to reading off screens in terms of three things:
processing of information, rentention of info in memory and analysis.
"But first, let's see what the scans will be like.
"Marker asks a reporter to put himself into an (f)MRI machine so her
team can study which areas of the brain are activated by reading text
on paper compared to reading the same text on a computer screen or a
Kindle e-reader.
''And this is why this reporter is here. Today this reporter will donate
his brain scans to science.
''Among the things that Marker has discovered so far is that reading on
paper might be
something we as a civilization should not ever give up.
''She says: 'Even though reading on screens is useful and convenient,
and I do it
all the time, I feel that
reading on paper is something we should never cede to the digital
revolution. We need both."
''The scientists load me into the MRI machine and I'm off.
''Next step: They strap my head down, because any movement distorts the
brain imaging. Ever try to read a book without facial movements?
''With the invention of the fMRI only 20 years ago, along came the
ability to look at brain activity. Marker says that by understanding a
function as gigantic as reading, how the reading brain does its magic
dance, a response that hijacks all of
one’s attention, she might also learn how reading on screens could be
inferior to reading on paper.
''Research and teaching take up most of Marker's time, but when she has a
spare moment, she thinks about what all this might mean for the future
of humankind.
''During my first hour in the fMRI machine, researchers map my brain's
reading paths
to find out which parts correlate to
which regions of the brain.
''One of the biggest conundrums turns out to be a nagging
question for all mankind: What if reading on screens is not good
for retention of data, emotional connections and critical thinking skills?''
Of course, the above story is a fantasy, an imagined newspaper article from
the future.
But what if it turns out that reading on screens is inferior to
reading on paper? What then?
But just as nobody heeded the calls that radiation and cancer might impact cell
phone use, will the profit-seeking makers of e-readers listen to people
like the imaginary Dr Marker above, or
even care if she is right?
I think she's tilting at windmills.
-------------------
Dan Bloom is a freelance writer in Taiwan
Reply Reply to all Forward
Fuller, Cricket
Jul 9
to me
Dan,
A compelling idea, but we're going to pass. Looking forward to running your other piece next week!
Best,
Cricket
Cricket FullerAssistant Opinion EditorThe Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)210 Massachusetts Ave, Boston, MA 02115fullerc@csmonitor.com; 617-450-2431
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dan Bloom wrote:
What if reading off screens is not all it's cracked up to be?
by Dan Bloom
Imagine a news article datelined ''Boston, Massachusetts'' in the year
2025,
headlined ''MRI brain imaging lab studies differences in screen, paper
reading,'' that might begin like this:
"Ellen Marker studies reading. But not off screens or in
paper books.
Her research is done in a Boston laboratory.
''The pioneering neuroscientist analyzes brains in their reading
states, hoping to understand the differences between reading
on screens and reading on paper surfaces.
"Marker has a hunch that her studies will later show that reading on paper
is superior to reading off screens in terms of three things:
processing of information, rentention of info in memory and analysis.
"But first, let's see what the scans will be like.
"Marker asks a reporter to put himself into an (f)MRI machine so her
team can study which areas of the brain are activated by reading text
on paper compared to reading the same text on a computer screen or a
Kindle e-reader.
''And this is why this reporter is here. Today this reporter will donate
his brain scans to science.
''Among the things that Marker has discovered so far is that reading on
paper might be
something we as a civilization should not ever give up.
''She says: 'Even though reading on screens is useful and convenient,
and I do it
all the time, I feel that
reading on paper is something we should never cede to the digital
revolution. We need both."
''The scientists load me into the MRI machine and I'm off.
''Next step: They strap my head down, because any movement distorts the
brain imaging. Ever try to read a book without facial movements?
''With the invention of the fMRI only 20 years ago, along came the
ability to look at brain activity. Marker says that by understanding a
function as gigantic as reading, how the reading brain does its magic
dance, a response that hijacks all of
one’s attention, she might also learn how reading on screens could be
inferior to reading on paper.
''Research and teaching take up most of Marker's time, but when she has a
spare moment, she thinks about what all this might mean for the future
of humankind.
''During my first hour in the fMRI machine, researchers map my brain's
reading paths
to find out which parts correlate to
which regions of the brain.
''One of the biggest conundrums turns out to be a nagging
question for all mankind: What if reading on screens is not good
for retention of data, emotional connections and critical thinking skills?''
Of course, the above story is a fantasy, an imagined newspaper article from
the future.
But what if it turns out that reading on screens is inferior to
reading on paper? What then?
But just as nobody heeded the calls that radiation and cancer might impact cell
phone use, will the profit-seeking makers of e-readers listen to people
like the imaginary Dr Marker above, or
even care if she is right?
I think she's tilting at windmills.
-------------------
Dan Bloom is a freelance writer in Taiwan
Reply Forward
Dan Bloom
Jul 9
to Cricket
okay, first things first.........THANKS
waiting in the wings
i mailed contract signature by air mail should arrive MONDAY
dan
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Fuller, Cricket wrote:
Dan,
A compelling idea, but we're going to pass. Looking forward to running your other piece next week!
Best,Cricket
Cricket FullerAssistant Opinion EditorThe Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com)210 Massachusetts Ave, Boston, MA 02115fullerc@csmonitor.com; 617-450-2431
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dan Bloom wrote:
What if reading off screens is not all it's cracked up to be?
by Dan Bloom
Imagine a news article datelined ''Boston, Massachusetts'' in the year
2025,
headlined ''MRI brain imaging lab studies differences in screen, paper
reading,'' that might begin like this:
"Ellen Marker studies reading. But not off screens or in
paper books.
Her research is done in a Boston laboratory.
''The pioneering neuroscientist analyzes brains in their reading
states, hoping to understand the differences between reading
on screens and reading on paper surfaces.
"Marker has a hunch that her studies will later show that reading on paper
is superior to reading off screens in terms of three things:
processing of information, rentention of info in memory and analysis.
"But first, let's see what the scans will be like.
"Marker asks a reporter to put himself into an (f)MRI machine so her
team can study which areas of the brain are activated by reading text
on paper compared to reading the same text on a computer screen or a
Kindle e-reader.
''And this is why this reporter is here. Today this reporter will donate
his brain scans to science.
''Among the things that Marker has discovered so far is that reading on
paper might be
something we as a civilization should not ever give up.
''She says: 'Even though reading on screens is useful and convenient,
and I do it
all the time, I feel that
reading on paper is something we should never cede to the digital
revolution. We need both."
''The scientists load me into the MRI machine and I'm off.
''Next step: They strap my head down, because any movement distorts the
brain imaging. Ever try to read a book without facial movements?
''With the invention of the fMRI only 20 years ago, along came the
ability to look at brain activity. Marker says that by understanding a
function as gigantic as reading, how the reading brain does its magic
dance, a response that hijacks all of
one’s attention, she might also learn how reading on screens could be
inferior to reading on paper.
''Research and teaching take up most of Marker's time, but when she has a
spare moment, she thinks about what all this might mean for the future
of humankind.
''During my first hour in the fMRI machine, researchers map my brain's
reading paths
to find out which parts correlate to
which regions of the brain.
''One of the biggest conundrums turns out to be a nagging
question for all mankind: What if reading on screens is not good
for retention of data, emotional connections and critical thinking skills?''
Of course, the above story is a fantasy, an imagined newspaper article from
the future.
But what if it turns out that reading on screens is inferior to
reading on paper? What then?
But just as nobody heeded the calls that radiation and cancer might impact cell
phone use, will the profit-seeking makers of e-readers listen to people
like the imaginary Dr Marker above, or
even care if she is right?
I think she's tilting at windmills.
-------------------
Dan E. Bloom is a freelance writer in Taiwan, Tufts 1971 grad, eternal optimist.
Dan: why does electronic screens have to be inferior? I agree that I think text on a screen may be processed differently, in different parts or in different ways, from fixed print media. But why say one is inferior to the other? They're just different. Electronic may be MORE emotionally connecting.
And for anyone trying to imagine the future of e-books, check out the iPad App "the Fantastic Flying Books of Morris Lessmore." http://morrislessmore.com/ This is the most exciting new media I've seen since the Buffy vs. Edward video mashup.
My 3rd grader is pretty stuck on one series too "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". She does read plenty of other stuff too, but it drives me crazy to see her checking out the same DWK books over and over. I know she's only nine, but I'd prefer her to get involved with something more...intellectually nutritious.
But just the other day, he surprised me by saying he wanted to buy the next book by Rick Riordan when it comes out this spring. The hardcover book, not the Kindle edition. Even though he's been poring over the Percy Jackson novels on the Kindle, he said he doesn't want to read a new one for the first time on the iPad—it's not the same, he insisted. It's just not the same.