Hayles Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 As far as combating the “close-reading problem”, I don’t necessarily think of it as a problem. To an extent, and seemingly more often than not, close-reading is still being done, and it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, at least from what I can tell. I think what Hayles is instead getting at is that practices such as hyper-reading need to be included in this type of reading, or at least considered.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 Reading has undoubtedly changed with the evolution of the internet and digital technology. If perhaps not in definition, certainly in practice. However, I do think that along with a change of practices must come a change in definition. With the changes in practice also comes a change in purpose. As we’ve noted in previous class discussions, and specifically in relation to Carr, reading, now, is sometimes less for the quality of information, but instead, for the quantity of information. We skim and we scan for the important points and move on, reading more, but comprehending less, something that Hayles also speaks to. She discusses the different patterns of reading and how they’ve changed over time and with the changes in online texts, noting that most people read in an “F” pattern, starting at the beginning to read most, and eventually reading down the left site, scanning for the important information. This is, in part I think, due to the sheer amount of information readily available to anyone able to use the internet. There have always been distractions while reading, but now, online and digital reading, often include distractions in the form of ads within the text, making them less easily avoided.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Some of the positives, I believe, for “re-doing” the definition of reading is that it allows for other forms of reading to be considered as such. I don’t know that a lot of the reading that is done now online would have been considered such, or at least on the same level as “traditional reading” even 10 years ago. It allows for an expansion, it begins to make room for the changing practices, but it also allows for some inclusion, for hyper-reading to be considered a form of close-reading. Something, I think, that becomes important when considering the implications for the field of DH considering the concern with inclusion within its own practices.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 One of the words I associate with reading in general is investment. With “traditional reading”, investment is important and takes a lot of it to really commit to close reading. The way I see this changing with reading in light of internet is that there seems to be lack, instead looking for more information instead of investing so much time and energy into one text. Information is also something I think about in terms of reading. Again, with newer reading practices, the focus on information seems to be in regards to the quantity, knowing less about more, versus the value that “traditional reading” seems to place upon the quality, knowing a lot about something important. Words I would associate with newer, digital reading practices are scanning, skimming, hyper-reading, but these are also words that don’t necessarily seem to have a place in more traditional practices of reading, where again, the focus is on quality information, something typically less achievable, if not impossible, when skimming.
I understood the same idea from Hayles argument that she is trying to encourage the incorporation of hypnerreading in close reading. I think her call comes from the need of enhancing the traditional literary methods with the digital. How about you? Where do you think her ideas are coming from?
Hayles doesn’t really see it as a problem, either, so you’re on the right track here.