Who’s Killing ‘Deep-Focus Reading’?

By Jennifer Schuessler

Steven Johnson, writing in The Wall Street Journal, has some good news for the publishing industry: the Kindle and other electronic readers are going to help you sell a lot more books!

But he also has some bad news for the authors: readers aren’t going to finish most of them.

“Because they have been largely walled off from the world of hypertext, print books have remained a kind of game preserve for the endangered species of linear, deep-focus reading,” Johnson writes. But thanks to digitization, books will soon become just another part of the enormous universe of online information, available when and where and how you want it.

Readers, he predicts, will create “booklogs,” analogous to Weblogs (now known just as blogs), pulling out and commenting on passages they find particularly illuminating or maddening. And Google will start indexing and ranking individual pages and paragraphs according to how much of this chatter they generate.

So much for the ancient pleasures of reading silently, and alone. And so much for writing with the intention of holding attention through a long linear narrative:

Individual paragraphs will be accompanied by descriptive tags to orient potential searchers; chapter titles will be tested to determine how well they rank. Just as Web sites try to adjust their content to move as high as possible on the Google search results, so will authors and publishers try to adjust their books to move up the list.

What will this mean for the books themselves? Perhaps nothing more than a few strategically placed words or paragraphs. Perhaps entire books will be written with search engines in mind. We’ll have to see.

Johnson also imagines the day when you’ll be able to buy books by the chapter, the short story or the poem. Maybe Paper Cuts should replace the Living With Music feature with playlists of favorite literary moments?

For Johnson’s full article, click here.

(Alarmed by this brave new world? Go back and reread John Updike’s essay in the Book Review lamenting Google’s snippetization of literature.)

Comments are no longer being accepted.

grammatophile April 22, 2009 · 7:47 am

I like the Kindle a lot. I have read about ten books already, read vast portions of the Sunday NYTimes for the first time in numerous years, and notate and bookmark to my heart’s delight.

I also find gratification in feeling like Star Trek’s Picard when I sit with my thin rectangular window to the vast world of information. I have read small libraries of paper books, so don’t think that I come at this from a semi-literate angle.

The Kindle is something of researcher’s dream, since its digital bookmarking and notation capabilities make creating footnotes one step easier. Now, if we can only get those millions of books I really want to read digitized!

jh April 22, 2009 · 8:47 am

Totally ludicrous. The kind of people who read entire books will continue to read them in any form, and Cliff Notes readers will have a more accessible medium with which to introduce themselves to (or, as the case may be, cheat themselves of) works. In the example Johnson gives in the beginning of his article he’s not even clicking a hyperlink; he’s simply doing the e-book equivalent of putting down a book and picking up a new one, which is what he likely would have done anyway had he been at home (or in a bookstore!) instead of in a restaurant. Reading something one doesn’t feel like reading because there are no other options isn’t a sign of “deep reading,” unless such reading is meaningless, and giving those who have busy lives the opportunity to read books (in however piecemeal a fashion) isn’t a negative thing. I don’t even want to get into the “serialization” threats (Oh no! Imagine if Dostoevsky had first been read in pieces! Er….); suffice to say the original article and the sum given here are both more provocative than truly thought-provoking. The great thing about technology is that I can tell you myself that so far I’ve read eleven books on my Kindle, and I’ve finished them all.

Gerry April 22, 2009 · 9:27 am

I’m not in a position to support or dispute these findings, but I will say this.

In the past four months, I have read (in their entirety), the following books on my iPhone: Call of the Wild, Robinson Crusoe, Huckleberry Finn, and numerous essays by the nature writer John Burroughs. I’m nearly finished with Dracula, and glad to be catching up on books I somehow bypassed in earlier life.

Meanwhile, my house is strewn with half-finished paperbacks and hardbound books.

I mean to say, individuals’ reading habits may be considerably more complicated, less linear, and less bound by the question of format than the pundits suggest.

AngelaM April 22, 2009 · 9:35 am

Why would that be the case? I have been a reader all my life. I have a Kindle as well as lots of books and I read books on the Kindle as well as on paper and I read them start to finish if they hold my interest. I don’t think the device makes a difference. The only time I don’t finish a book is if I loose interest, usually shortly after I started it. But that happens with paper books as well as a Kindle book. I use the Kindle mostly when I travel so I don’t have to carry a lot of heavy books around. It’s a great device for readers.

David in Wonderland April 22, 2009 · 9:58 am

I have to wonder if we’re really talking here about people who already don’t read much. We have a Kindle, and well, it’s basically another delivery system for books, sans the dust and musty smells that our piles and piles and shelves and shelves of paper books pick up. We still read, and I think that readers will always read – as long, that is, as there remains a system for supporting the creation and dissemination of written material. I think it’s possible that people who don’t normally read a lot might pick up a Kindle or another reader and have a go at becoming readers. But these are people who expect technology to enhance their experiences of art and of the world and that expectation is somewhat tautological. Lastly, I think that at some point, readers will largely die out due to lack of intellectual habitat and sustenance and the species will indeed be impoverished by that fact. But I don’t blame the Kindle for that seeming inevitability. I blame people who prefer passive ingestion of symbolic content to active pursuit thereof and who pass those preferences on to their offspring.

Regards,

David in Wonderland

Sam April 22, 2009 · 10:03 am

No matter how much the NYT tries to help out Amazon by advertising Kindle, the fact still remains that it is NOT a very compelling technology and will likely disappear like every other unsuccessful electronic “book” that has come before it.

Why? Because the book (codex) is in an almost perfect technology and Kindle is not an improvement. Kindle will never command any sizable market share because it is too expensive, can’t be traded, can’t fill up bookshelves, can’t be given to a friend, can’t be inscribed by the author, can’t be safely read at the beach, in the bath, etc. Books provide all of these and more without having to plunk down another $500 for a single purpose gizmo to use them.

Compact discs were introduced to the marketplace the same year as the first eBooks. CDs replaced records and tapes almost overnight because people could recognize that they were an improved technology. When the iPod came along it spawned an entire industry–MP3 players, music download sites, even new legislation.

eBooks have a very narrow market and are most appropriate for manuals and other information that is meant for ready reference or changes frequently. I really wish the NYT would stop pretending it is otherwise.

Ah but it’s so dramatic to predict the end of reading and books despite all evidence to the contrary!

dude April 22, 2009 · 10:04 am

all of these things are already happening. Its not going to stop me from reading books, though. Computer screens are just plain uncomfortable to read for any extended period of time…thats just about all there is to it.

Tamara Sellman/Writer’s Rainbow Literary Services LLC April 22, 2009 · 10:45 am

Aw, come on, reading is reading. The anti-eBook mantra is getting old and tired.

I read more now than I did pre-Kindle because it’s just that much easier to do. Newspapers included. Control over font size? Ability to search and to take notes? Cheaper prices? What’s not to love?

As an editor/writer, I deep-read books regardless of medium. I appreciate how easy it is to read in bed with the Kindle as opposed to turning pages, holding up heavy bindings, and squinting with paper texts printed in smaller fonts. And I love having my whole library with me at any one time.

What I will tell you is this: if a book doesn’t grab me, it gets put down, print or electronic. For me, the onus is still on the authors to deliver quality narrative. You can’t blame the medium for any failure to deliver. That’s the storyteller’s job.

Luddites, beware, you’ll not win this fight. It’ll be a stalemate: not an either/or proposition. People who read will continue to read both digital and paper books. Period. It’s a parallel universe, not a cage match between formats!

Ultimately, readers will win. And maybe a few nonreaders will be lured by the eBook’s digital appeal. Why would that be a bad thing?

//www.writersrainbow.com

Coolbrooklynguy April 22, 2009 · 10:48 am

I wish the thing were $150 and not like $350’ish…

Michael April 22, 2009 · 11:07 am

May we start referring to “booklogs” as “klogs”?

Z April 22, 2009 · 11:25 am

I would get one if I had disposable income. I think I’d prefer traditional marginalia, though. I have chronic repetitive strain injury from a lifetime of gaming, chatting, etc., so I can’t text or, I imagine, flip pages with a Kindle button without hurting myself. Sad but true. The more buttons and electronic typing we introduce into our lives, though, the more we put ourselves at risk for unforeseen injuries–be they of the mind or body. Time will tell how the Kindle adapts to (or becomes maladaptive for) humans.

chris April 22, 2009 · 11:43 am

I am an avid reader and really excited about the kindle for large books which are somewhat physically unmanageable, even in paperback form. I will buy one as soon as Gravity’s Rainbow and 2666 are on it.

Martha Rowen April 22, 2009 · 12:14 pm

My daughter gave me a Kindle for my birthday and after an initial moment of finding it a bit foreign after years of reading books, I have discovered that I am reading faster and finishing books more quickly on the Kindle. I don’t find myself distracted the way I am reading on the computer but somehow I find myself moving more quickly than with books, less distracted by footnotes and a desire to leaf through the coming pages. In any event, I think that people who like to read and have always tended to finish books will continue to do so on these new reading devices. I also think that people whose main reading experience has been on the computer with its distractions are likely to develop an ability to concentrate with the Kindle. As an aside, I really like the instant gratification of downloading a book I’ve seen mentioned in an article and being able to start reading it immediately.

Peter Chang April 22, 2009 · 12:29 pm

The great things about the whole situation would be books regarding music: you can now HEAR what the writers are trying to say by simply clicking on a tap. sure there will be copy right issues involved buy oh the possibilities!!!!

deadgod April 22, 2009 · 1:30 pm

Not clear how silent, enbubbled reading will disappear as a result of e-books or hypertext or (gasp) unfinished books, but the “ancient pleasures of reading” were usually enjoyed out loud, weren’t they?

—–

“Perhaps entire books will be written with search engines in mind.”

Wasn’t ‘Homer’ put together “with search engines in mind”? In fact, what is NOT written with memory in mind?

Jon Rutherford April 22, 2009 · 2:39 pm

I think, and hope, that the prospect of losing “deep” reading is exaggerated. The people who are not reading attentively and linearly now would probably not be doing it even if electronics had never been harnessed in the service of literature.

Another thing — some of the best authors will not be snipping away at their own books trying to get better rankings. They are deceased, and many of their works are in the public domain. (Sigh of relief.)

phil Greene April 22, 2009 · 2:54 pm

i read several books a week. Good bye to the printed word, meaning newspapers, books and hopefully the post office. I love my kindle and will never again buy a printed book.

Luis Frost April 22, 2009 · 5:10 pm

The kind of people who isn´t willing to read an entire book without hypertext and google rankings will continue to do so. and the other kind… well, i for one am happy, because they may keep the publishers and writers alive with all that fast reading and fast spending.
think of it as if they were giving money to our cause.

The Digitalists April 22, 2009 · 9:40 pm

I wonder if the people downplaying the significance of all these coming changes realize how out-of-touch they sound. Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to cuddle up in your study with your musty old books, dial on a rotary phone and watch black-and-white TV without a remote. Johnson’s article was for the rest of us.

Anyway, I had similar thoughts on my blog a few weeks ago (//tr.im/jtg7). I completely agree with Johnson: Change is coming, not just to HOW we read but to WHAT we read.

T Millar April 22, 2009 · 11:08 pm

I used a Kindle on a two week trip for both book and newspaper reading. My personal verdict: can’t wait for Kindle 5.0. It’s got the same kind of advantages, and weaknesses, of calculators circa 1980. You know it’s gonna be good…it’s just not there yet. Screen’s better for reading than a computer screen, but too small. Flipping between ‘pages’ is awkward and tedious. Forget about formatting insets and graphs.

Mostly, I found myself increasingly grazing over text rather than achieving ‘deep focus.’ Clearly, from the comments I’ve read, that is not true for a lot of folks.

The biggest drawback is the commercial one…an average of $10 for a book, and you can only read it on one machine? (Two or more, but only if YOU own them.) No lending or sharing. That’s gotta change.

Edward Carney April 24, 2009 · 2:14 pm

Since getting a Sony Reader PRS-505 last December, I have read (or re-read) Keynes’s “Economic Consequences of the Peace,” Charlotte Bronte’s “Villette,” Henry James’s “Confidence,” Forster’s “A Room With a View,” and Dickens’s “Pickwick Papers.” I have begun Alfred Russell Wallace’s “Malay Archipelago” and Trollope’s “The Way We Live Now.”

Having all of these books in electronic form, instead of in hard to pack/carry volumes, makes it much more likely that I will read them.

Not every tool, even of the electronic variety, portends the end of civilization. Really!

miriam April 25, 2009 · 12:33 pm

I don’t know what killed deep-focus reading, but I find it hard to blame computer technology. How about television, with its barrage of sonic distractions that are raucous, wordy or both? How about the faster, ever-shifting pace of contemporary life, which makes it hard to slow down and relax?

Whoever invented the hyperlink didn’t invent distraction itself. And at a computer (I don’t know about the latest handheld devices) one can keep that distraction at bay by opening a link in a new window.

I love printed books, I buy them, and I don’t want to see them die. But lately I find I am less distracted at the computer. When I look up from a book, as I inevitably will, I see an apartment in which something needs to be cleaned, fixed, or put in order. A computer screen is directly in my line of vision, and as long as I’m looking at a Web page without distracting ads, I’m all set.

Whenever I hear that sustained reading is possible only with the printed page, I have to disagree. I have read Moby-Dick on the computer, from beginning to end, except for the longest chapter, “The Town-Ho’s Story,” which I read the old-fashioned way.

I have not read anything that long on the tiny screen of my cell phone, but I have read on it Willa Cather’s “Paul’s Case,” Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Harvard Divinity School Address, and Matthew Arnold’s dramatic poem “Empedocles on Etna.”

So Steven Johnson thinks not finishing books is a new thing? People have left books barely read, or dipped into them, since before anyone can remember.

As for typing comments, how is that more distracting than whipping out a pen and notebook and writing by hand? (I don’t believe in writing in books; even if you own the copy, the marginalia become distractions.)

I’ve never tried reading an e-book, but if you’re going to complain about them, at least raise an intelligent complaint as T. Millar did (#20). By making sharing more difficult, DRM fragments the reading community. What price maximization of profit?

Jennifer Wright June 21, 2009 · 12:44 pm

I’m writing in response to “Get a Life, Holden.” I’m sticking my comment here because there’s not a discussion thread about today’s piece (6/21/09).

The problem is not whether teenagers in 2009 relate to the character, Holden Caulfield, it’s whether teachers are teaching literature as it should be taught–not as some popular fiction on Oprah’s Book Club list–but as a vehicle for understanding philosophy, history, and the human condition. To reduce The Cather in the Rye to a story about an alienated teenager is really to miss everything important about the novel.

Teachers should be talking about the post-war period when human beings were trying to reconstruct a “civilized self” after so much death and depravity and expose students to existentialism and a more generalized sense of alienation from capitalist materialism.

On the beach, we may read for escape. In the classroom, we should be reading to learn to think with clarity and understanding of what came before, rather than looking at everything through the prism of now.

I have noticed a sad trend in public school classrooms, at least, where fiction is always presented to students in terms of how the character or the situation relates to their personal lives. How trivializing, not to mention boring! It’s no wonder so many students can’t get into it.