In Jonah Lehrer's article "The Future of Reading," he combines the persuasive use of relating to the reader with the rational style of a scientific paper. This combination creates an effective argument that both emotionally and logically appeals to the reader. Lehrer utilizes what Alan Gross describes as Baconian Induction when formulating his argument. By organizing his paper in this way, he creates an argument that is clear, concise, and appealing to an intellectual audience.
Lehrer begins his article by addressing his personal experience with both printed and non-printed books, and how he views our society's ongoing divergence from printed literature. He then reinforces his beliefs about the need for complexity of reading through the use of a scientist's study of the electrical impulses in the brain while reading. Because of this, it is apparent that deep thinking is imperative for a person to truly comprehend and appreciate a piece of writing. This concrete, factual introduction to Lehrer's argument validates his claim while simultaneously causing the reader to utilize the method of reading he is describing, as the scientific explanation itself requires deep reading.
He then brings in Francis Bacon's concept of an ascending and descending ladder. As Gross describes it, it acts two-fold, "ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments." Lehrer uses this concept throughout his article as he builds his claim that while the availability of virtual texts is positive, the resulting decrease in comprehension and deep thinking of the material creates a situation in which the reader will understand a sentence one second and forget it entirely in the next. He proposes that the clarity of the screen and simplicity of the language being used is lowering the challenge that comes from pushing through "complex clauses and smudged ink."
Lehrer concludes his paper by then suggesting an experiment for his own readers. He suggests to them that in order to reconcile online reading with the intellectual drawbacks, they must find ways to make the reading difficult again for the audience. He suggests changing fonts, colors, etc. to bring back the challenge of reading. As he says, "our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously." This ties together his argument while at the same time representing the descending ladder by proposing yet another experiment to further his conclusions.
It is at this point, however, that I feel the need to point out some ironic discrepancies existing in Lehrer's article. To begin with, he has published his article online in a very clear and simple manner, making the reading fast and unconscious (with the exception of the description of the neural impulses of the brain, which take a bit more comprehension). The article does not utilize vocabulary that is altogether challenging to understand or develop complex sentences that require any hesitation at all by the reader. On top of that, he does not follow his own advice at the end of the article. His presentation is very easy to read; the font is clear, the colors simply black and white, and he has done nothing to change the contrast of the screen as he suggests to his readers. So I now leave my own readers with this question:
If it is so important for these changes to be made in order to stimulate what Lehrer calls, "e-readers" into a deeper understanding of the text, then why does he not implement these suggestions as an example?
Also, as I have just demonstrated Lehrer's suggestion of changing the colors of my own blog to make your eyes strain, has his idea proven to be effective? Was the struggle to read my article helpful in slowing you down and focusing on the message? Or has it simply given you a headache a made you angry at me for making my page look so awfully annoying?
No comments:
Post a Comment