For over thirty years now, society has embraced the ability to use the Internet, a network of information accessible to (nearly) everyone across the globe. Thanks to the Internet, acquiring information has never been easier. The answers to impossible riddles or complex math equations can be answered at the click of a button or the mash of a keyboard. The world has significantly benefited from this development, seeing incredible leaps in the feats we have since accomplished; however, critics suggest that this complex system may be the very thing that is changing the way we think—and not for the better.
After having the works of Kathleen Fitzpatrick and Nicholas Carr presented, it is evident that their takes on how the internet shapes the way we read, write, and think are extremely different. In Fitzpatrick’s “Reading (and Writing) Online, Rather Than on the Decline,” she observes that in today’s world, books and print are hastily being replaced by online modes of literature. Although this is a new and different medium, Fitzpatrick hints that this is not a bad thing—sure, more online devices have and will result in less books being read globally; however, the author overturns this negative statement, asserting that “if more people are reading online, more people are reading, period.” The Internet is not killing literature or consumption of it—in fact, the Internet is encouraging it, offering new channels for it to grow from. Fitzpatrick then goes on to remind us that the Internet “exists as much for scholars as it does for students,” outlining more positive implications that reading and writing on the Internet can have; implications that include collaboration, engagement, accessibility, and more. Ultimately, Fitzpatrick insists that reading has increasingly shifted to online modes “where it has taken on an increasingly social, increasingly active form,” suggesting these online modes are better compared to traditional print sources.
On the other hand, however, Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid” argues against the use of the internet in relation to literature. He is convinced that the internet is reprogramming our brains, embedding this system that values “‘efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else,” training us to “zip along the surface,” searching for “quick wins.” Carr insists that this system is “chipping away… capacity for concentration and contemplation” making it harder to sit down and delve into dense prose. However, despite the claims and complaints, Carr does acknowledge that the internet is not all bad, admitting that “the Web has been a godsend… as a writer. Research that once required days… can now be done in minutes,” and that is an enormous reason why humanity has been able to make the advancements it has.
Fitzpatrick and Carr both make very compelling points; however, Fitzpatrick came out with the better argument. Although Carr is a renown writer and speaker, having degrees from Dartmouth and Harvard, his heightened credibility and lofty background may have led to his ultimate demise—he simply failed to relate to his audience. All throughout Carr’s essay, he uses multiple quotations from other very esteemed sources, most of them coming from the same or similar backgrounds as himself. What Carr fails to grasp that Fitzpatrick danced with, was the fact that there are billions of people using the internet worldwide—there is no chance that they all use the internet the same ways he does. Not everyone who browses the internet reads “War and Peace” or enjoys diving into deep prose for leisure. Fitzpatrick understands this internet diversity, citing numerous methods how the internet can be used for literary purposes, referring to “Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr,” adding that, “scholars share links to longer pieces of writing; they engage in complex conversations… with many colleagues.” Carr assumes that most of his audience, like him, enjoys reading deep prose, when in fact, “less than half of the adult population now reads literature.” This is a very vivid reminder that times are changing
Gone are the days where hours were spent sifting through piles of books or journals for a single statistic or detail. The way we extract information is very different than it was a couple of decades ago. The internet is a more efficient medium and efficiency is the direction that the world is headed towards. This efficiency is exactly what Carr fears, suggesting that it “may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when… the printing press made long and complex works of prose commonplace.” Carr’s argument focusing more on what was, rather than what is. The truth is, “long and complex prose” are no longer commonplace—the internet and digital media are. Fitzpatrick also takes this into account, asserting that “the greatest challenge… we face today in our encounter with the digital future… lies in the need for members of traditional literary culture to acknowledge that… these forms and modes can support the literacy we value,” and that the task is to “find ways to work with them instead of dismissing them.” In other words, Fitzpatrick embraces change and progression while Carr resents it.
One thing that was born from this change was the ability for an audience to respond to a piece of writing. Carr obviously argued that reading on the internet reduces user engagement—that we become distracted and fail to invest in the content. Carr asserts that “when we read online… we tend to become… largely disengaged,” while Fitzpatrick argues quite the opposite. Fitzpatrick makes an interesting observation, explaining that, when on the internet, “readers expect to be able to comment on what they read.” Moreover, “readers expect the author to respond as well.” This breeds a relationship with the author and the reader—but it doesn’t stop there! Because of the internet, scholars can also interact and collaborate with each other. The collaborative efforts can range from “practicing… the art of staking out a position,” to “engaging with counterarguments.” As Fitzpatrick put it, these avenues “can undoubtedly help produce better writers and clearer thinkers in any venue.” Fitzpatrick boldly disagrees with Carr’s accusation that the internet does not encourage engagement, citing numerous examples that proves users are indeed very engaged when sampling digital literature.
The internet has changed many of the things we do today, it has influenced the ways we read, write, and think—however, this isn’t a bad thing, as expressed by Fitzpatrick. The internet is a network of information, intended to bring people together, encourage collaboration, and spark engagement. The internet—and Fitzpatrick—are marching forward, while Carr remains in the past, refusing to accept that these new online modes of literature are now commonplace. The internet is more collaborative, more engaging, more accessible than print forms, and therefore, is the superior medium for literature.
Work Cited:
Carr, Nicholas. “A Writer of Books, Essays, and Ephemera.” Nicholas Carr, http://www.nicholascarr.com/.
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 13 June 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Reading ( and Writing ) Online , Rather Than on the Decline.
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. “About.” Kathleen Fitzpatrick, 1 Apr. 2019, https://kfitz.info/about/.
Pledged: MS
