Comments on: Twitter and Luddism http://timothyblee.com/2010/02/09/twitter-and-luddism/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:37:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Pete http://timothyblee.com/2010/02/09/twitter-and-luddism/comment-page-1/#comment-11256 Pete Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:03:43 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=2428#comment-11256 Nice post, but I think you're moving a bit fast. One thing you sort of gloss over is the McLuhan-style idea that the medium matters. When you say that it's not about books, but about reading, you're holding the medium constant. I'm pretty sure that the Luddite's would maintain that reading on the internet is inherently likely to be more inane and ephemeral than reading a book, whatever it is you actually happen to be reading. At its worst this is a pretty stupid argument where you take the best of the off-line world and compare it to whatever's big on Youtube this week - Andrew Keen has actually made a career out of this. But I find Nick Carr's idea that we don't have enough time for reflection when the next bit of knowledge is just a click away more convincing. Nice post, but I think you’re moving a bit fast. One thing you sort of gloss over is the McLuhan-style idea that the medium matters. When you say that it’s not about books, but about reading, you’re holding the medium constant. I’m pretty sure that the Luddite’s would maintain that reading on the internet is inherently likely to be more inane and ephemeral than reading a book, whatever it is you actually happen to be reading.

At its worst this is a pretty stupid argument where you take the best of the off-line world and compare it to whatever’s big on Youtube this week – Andrew Keen has actually made a career out of this. But I find Nick Carr’s idea that we don’t have enough time for reflection when the next bit of knowledge is just a click away more convincing.

]]> By: Kevin B. O'Reilly http://timothyblee.com/2010/02/09/twitter-and-luddism/comment-page-1/#comment-11248 Kevin B. O'Reilly Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:33:38 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=2428#comment-11248 Many books are ridiculously overwritten. That is, they are much longer than they need to be to justify the advance the writer's getting or the cover price of the hardback. This is true of fiction and nonfiction. For all the talk about how Internet encourages short attention spans, the publishing industry has long encouraged length for length's sake. How much more time would we have is every interesting book were half as long? Many books are ridiculously overwritten. That is, they are much longer than they need to be to justify the advance the writer’s getting or the cover price of the hardback. This is true of fiction and nonfiction. For all the talk about how Internet encourages short attention spans, the publishing industry has long encouraged length for length’s sake. How much more time would we have is every interesting book were half as long?

]]> By: Brian Moore http://timothyblee.com/2010/02/09/twitter-and-luddism/comment-page-1/#comment-11242 Brian Moore Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:53:46 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=2428#comment-11242 I'm not a twitter fan either, but it seems very unlikely that 140 character bits are really crowding out books. Blogs maybe? But even then, only non fiction ones. Though I suppose lots of the political ones resemble fiction. I’m not a twitter fan either, but it seems very unlikely that 140 character bits are really crowding out books. Blogs maybe? But even then, only non fiction ones. Though I suppose lots of the political ones resemble fiction.

]]> By: Rhayader http://timothyblee.com/2010/02/09/twitter-and-luddism/comment-page-1/#comment-11240 Rhayader Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:56:20 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=2428#comment-11240 I like this analysis, but I still can't stand Twitter. To me the character limit makes for a generally shallow experience, even if I try to follow people I enjoy as bloggers (Balko, for instance). I'd rather read what they write when they have the space to actually write it. Of course I could just be an incorrigible misanthrope, which is a distinct possibility considering I never did anything more with Facebook than register an account. I like this analysis, but I still can’t stand Twitter. To me the character limit makes for a generally shallow experience, even if I try to follow people I enjoy as bloggers (Balko, for instance). I’d rather read what they write when they have the space to actually write it.

Of course I could just be an incorrigible misanthrope, which is a distinct possibility considering I never did anything more with Facebook than register an account.

]]>