Witwat.net

I was listening to Friday's show on The Reading Mind. While it sounded like an absolutely fascinating show - namely the effect of reading on the mental development of kids and the eventual effects on areas such as critical thinking, creativity, empathy and such - it unfortunately never quite lived up to its promise.

While I don't entirely expect them to air shows custom-tailored to my preferences, I just felt like the conversation sort of ran away from the original intent. I felt like some of my fundamental questions were simply left hanging. I have to stop with the podcasts and start listening live, so that I can call in and pin them down, I guess.

Essentially, the neurologist (Maryanne Wolf) was insisting that the act of reading itself - rather than the content - was crucial to the formation of the aforementioned very important attributes and that the current decline in reading literature was leading to devolution of the human race. Ok, perhaps I'm taking a few liberties with the second half of that description but that was certainly how I perceived her opinion.

Note the very important logical leap involved. She goes from the act of reading to the qualities text being read. From medium to content. This is the part that was absolutely killing me, as I sat there impotently listening.

It was never expressed directly but without fail, the word 'reading' was always directly associated with and assumed to be synonymous with a book of fiction of no insignificant length. The only guest I can recall referring to non-fiction was the dissenter (Constance Steinkuhler, whom I need to look up, as she sounded really interesting).

And no one called her on it. I found it absolutely maddening that a scientist could step up and make assumptions that things like the tactile nature of books, quality and literary value of the writing and such was a part of physiological formation of neural pathways. It was a huge leap that no one picked up on - presumably because of the sanctity of literature. No one wants to appear to be the anti-intellectual Neanderthal on NPR, apparently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the reading... but I'm a big stickler on the separation of medium and content. I think that the act of curling up with a book is a good thing - regardless of whether you're reading a timeless classic, a comic book or a trashy novel. That's a matter of medium.

Similarly, I think that the quality of what you're reading is completely independent of the format in which you're reading it. As far as the one's thought processes, I firmly believe that the wonderful prose you may be reading on paper would have the same effect if it were on a screen or even being told orally, for that matter. The medium may have an effect on the physical experience but - so long as you're paying the same amount of attention to the material - the format does not effect or alter the words you are absorbing, digesting, internalizing and from which you are learning. Thats a matter of content.

The entire show completely glossed over the difference, much to my consternation. I'm always happy to be proven wrong. I'm never happy to be told that I'm wrong without proof, however. I'll never quite understand how people are using the much-feared intarwebs for all their information without managing to absorb, digest, internalize and learn from the written word - which sounds an awful lot like reading to me.

I don't see the difference, aside from literary quality (the arbitrary measure of what's good literature and what isn't) and length. It just comes across as elitist.

---

So, to Maryanne Wolf I have the following recommendation:

If you feel that the physical sensation of the printed medium is more amenable to the absorption of a specific type of material that leads to the development of important neurological training that has made Western civilization possible, then say so. As it is, that's the best guess that I can come up with as to your assertion. If you're trying to make an argument, then you need to come out and say it at some point.