Has this article about reading online been discussed?

[Jami]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

Discuss. :001_smile:

[elizam]

:001_huh:

 

However, as a parent who loves books and has only one of 4 dc who loves them also, I :iagree:with this article to some extent. I hate to admit it, but I do.

[T Baer]

It's portable and with the library you have alot to choose from. Reading a book online is not the "it" for us. We limit the, " isolating electronics devices" (TV, computer, MP3/Ipods, TV games, handheld games) and that makes a huge differences. We also read aloud everyday and have discussions.

[3lilreds in NC]

I don't like to read online. In fact, I'm having a hard time reading the article on my computer. I've also discovered that I'm an auditory learner and I do better with audiobooks in general, though. :)

 

I would rather my kids read books, and they are happy to do that. They are young yet, so their computer time is limited to Webkinz in the afternoons, and sometimes other sites where they can play games. I love to see them curl up in various places around the house to read. They still love when I read aloud to them - I think they would choose for us to do that together over just about anything else.

 

I suppose I'm old-fashioned, but I love the idea of a book in my hand. It's portable, like T Baer said, and there's no comparison to reading online, IMO. b Plus, sitting at the computer to read is not my idea of fun anyway - I'd rather be in my chair, laying in bed, in the tub.... not in my computer chair. :D

[dangermom]

Here's a quotation from the article:

Web proponents believe that strong readers on the Web may eventually surpass those who rely on books. Reading five Web sites, an op-ed article and a blog post or two, experts say, can be more enriching than reading one book.

“It takes a long time to read a 400-page book,†said Mr. Spiro of Michigan State. “In a tenth of the time,†he said, the Internet allows a reader to “cover a lot more of the topic from different points of view.â€

Now, IMO reading 5 websites may give you more PsOV, but it will also give you a shallow understanding of the topic. Books, usually, are going to give you the complex, deep thinking you need to truly understand something.

 

I love the Internet, it has a lot of good (like this board!). But it can't replace books, and if our society decides to think that online reading is as good as book reading, we are going to lose something very important. Both have important benefits, and those benefits are different from each other. But if I could only have one, it would be books.

[Margaret in GA]

Thanks for linking the article. This quote really stuck out to me:

 

In a book, “they go through a lot of details that aren’t really needed,†Hunter said. “Online just gives you what you need, nothing more or less.â€

 

Well, that's the problem isn't it? "details that aren't really needed"? Oh my. My kids are required to read and once they begin a book (sometimes begrudgingly) they find they can't put it down. Why don't parents make their kids read instead of just hoping and then giving up like the parents in this article?

 

Margaret

[SFP]

Because the parents in the article don't really like to read themselves.

[AmyB]

It is so hard to find the correct factual information at a library. You go through tons of books. Most of that stuff can be found in very little time online, unless it is specialized stuff that was written in the 1940's or something.

[CLHCO]

They are different and I agree that for things you need a sound bite answer to, the internet is great. For many average, daily research needs the internet is far more useful than books.

 

However, you can't assume internet reading and "just reading anything" are anywhere near the same as reading the quality books through literary history. When I read C.S. Lewis' autobiography I was stunned at the then and now of literary discussions and reading. There was a real depth to the entire thought process you don't see when you are simply gathering a fact here and there. I think these kids are missing out on that. I was a TV baby and I know I did. It took quite some time as an adult to be able to focus on a "real" book.

 

They're all living on the surface. The blast of information with no depth possibly does have some consequences. I know my attention isn't what I would like it to be when I spend too much time "reading" on the internet.

 

Of course, the parents reading of magazines is probably not much different than what the children are reading though. My husband's family would often brag about how they always read. Dh shakes his head at that now, thinking about how many romance novels his then teen sisters read through and how many post-world war 3 stupid things he did. I'm not sure I was much worse off as a TV baby than a life of one book of twaddle after the next.

[Haiku]

“I was trying to imagine this and I was like, I can’t do this,†she said. “It was just so — wow.â€

Yep, that about sums it up.I would rather that my kids read nothing than read fan fiction. I do not subscribe to the idea that any reading is better than no reading. I think that reading trash is worse than not reading. At least if you aren't reading trash you have time for other, more worthy, pursuits.

 

If Nadia's mom is so worried about getting her to love books, maybe she should consider limiting her online time to something less than SIX HOURS A DAY!

 

Tara

[cathmom]

I taught high school Spanish last year. I don't think my students read much, but some of them also did not know how to search for information on the Internet. I had to walk several students through a very easy search - they did not even know what kind of information they would need!

 

There is a big difference between a classic and fan fiction. There is, quite frankly, a big difference between a published romance novel and fan fiction. The process that a book must go through to be published is supposed to ensure some level of quality.

 

There is no way reading on a computer can replace reading actual books.