Title: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains
Author: Nicholas Carr
To make it clear: I read this book so I could work with the college writing classes at UMass Lowell. They selected this book as their focus for the semester. A large majority of the faculty are pulling assignments from things found in this book. To provide support I felt I needed to be engaged in the conversation. I had read the original essay and didn’t take offense to Carr’s argument. I thought this would be a great read, a great source to generate research ideas and discussion points, and it would help me when students need research help.
I gave up on this one after chapter 3. I blame chapter 2 for making me not want to continue. Carr’s premise is that there is a problem with what the internet is doing to our brains. I found myself questioning if this is a bad thing.
I will admit I loved his chapter on neuroplasticity. I find this topic fascinating and would have enjoyed a book that focused on the biological and neurological changes happening as a result of changing how we consume, process and integrate data. I found value to the argument that reading on the web changes how we read. He lost me when he went back to Socrates and how the world changed when we shifted away oral communication and memorization to written communication. Carr went on and on about how they complained about how it would ruin oral traditions. Yes, it changed how we communicated. It changed how our brains worked, but it certainly didn’t ruin society. I felt Carr’s implication was giving validity to the fears of the ancient Greeks.
This is when I just stopped reading. If the argument is that this is ruining our brains then couldn’t this be an example that changing doesn’t mean ruining? How do we know this won’t be good in the long run? Did oral traditions totally disappear. There is still value in the spoken word: storytelling, public speaking, reciting poetry. They have become art forms and skills to develop to better yourself.
Should I have kept reading? Maybe, but I didn’t stop because I couldn’t read the way I use it. I stopped because I disliked his book and his premise. Do I disagree with him? Not necessarily; I simply don’t think we can judge the changes to our brain just yet. This book came off as a complaint more than informative for me. That’s not what I am looking for.
Finally, I was asked to include this commentary by a colleague. Carr covers the history of technology, but he fails to cover the history of the computer or the internet. I would think this would be important to cover if you are criticizing how the two are changing our brains.
Tags: reading
