In July, the New York Times published an article on the literary debate between reading online versus reading offline (i.e. books). At one point, author Motoko Rich writes:
“Clearly, reading in print and on the Internet are different. On paper, text has a predetermined beginning, middle and end, where readers focus for a sustained period on one author’s vision. On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends.”
I think there’s clearly value in reading, regardless of what form it takes, but I guess I’d have to say that reading online doesn’t – or can’t – replace reading offline. Online reading definitely develops a different skill set and maybe even increases a person’s ability to process information. But for me, it comes down to attention span. Reading online can be erratic and frenzied – we want information and we want it now! In the Web world, everything is (mostly) instantaneous and immediate. We’re all plugged in and barraged with constant streams of information. We don’t have to read everything start to finish to get the main idea. Reading offline, however, requires a focus that isn’t as prevalent as it used to be.
But most importantly, I think reading online keeps you from reading things you wouldn’t have otherwise. When you read online, you’re almost always reading something you were already looking for. Reading offline results in more “happy accidents,” where you find something you didn’t know you wanted. (Note: of course, as I typed that, I realized that Amazon.com has a great way of introducing you to books you might not have bought through the “other users also bought this” and “you might like this” features.)
So, what do you think? Is there a fundamental difference between reading online versus reading offline? Does it matter?
(And yes, I do realize the inherent irony of writing about this on an Internet blog.)
