Reading: an aberration

As an English teacher, I've heard many times that students' attention spans are being ruined by the rapid pace of events in the new technology. Films used to be more slowly-paced, people stuck it out to the end of a book. People Magazine articles don't tax the mind the way a New Yorker article does. Of course, people still read New Yorker articles. Or at least they look at the cartoons.

But what if technology is not destroying our attention span, but returning us to a more natural state of being? Humans did not evolve reading books--they are a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of humanity. The ideal of universal literacy is even more recent, barely a century old. To sit still for long periods of time with one's eyes moving minutely--and little other activity--across a page of small characters is a highly counter-intuitive act for an animal that for almost all of its history hunted, gathered, made artifacts, music, danced--all physical activities that engaged many parts of the body. The attention could engage more physical capabilities--not just the eyes and brain. Reading would naturally make the reader impatient, unless the book is so exciting that a degree of imaginary kinesis is aroused. I.e., the reader imaginatively runs through forests with Harry Potter, or is caught up in suspense. This may be why "popular" fiction is popular--there is action, and action is what humans evolved with. It feels more natural to be engaged that way. "Intellect" is touted by many as a higher form of humanity, but where did that judgment come from? From people interested in the intellectual life.

I heard an interview with the maker of a new computer game that involves the whole person in interactive music making online. I don't know why one wouldn't just buy an instrument, practice it, and get into a band. But this computer phenomenon is becoming wildly popular, and physical, interactive gaming is the new wave for computer games.

So, how do we promote reading when other activities can be characterized as more compatible with our human nature? It is not terribly cheering to argue that we must be able to read: unnatural as reading is, it has become necessary to survival. Moreover, intellectual activity had to drive all other activities, since we we are slower, smaller, and weaker than so many other animals.

We are in the early phases of new evolutionary directions--we must somehow combine the ability to interact intellectually (which is what reading should be) with physical activity, set aside time for each, cultivate both.