如果你戒掉社交媒体,你会读更多的书吗?
If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?

原始链接: https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/if-you-quit-social-media-will-you-read-more-books

BookTok和在线阅读社区的兴起正在拓展文学视野,让读者接触到以前鲜为人知的作品。然而,这种易于发现也引发了一个问题:高度过滤的阅读体验是否真的*提升*了阅读文化。 虽然在线平台能够快速探索兴趣,但也可能形成“信息茧房”,强化现有的品味,并可能限制知识的多样性。作者将此与传统读书会或文学社团的好处进行对比——这些空间鼓励辩论、分歧和接触具有挑战性的材料,即使最初不喜欢。 最终,文章主张保持平衡。虽然社交媒体加速了发现过程,并且可以将作家与传统出版渠道之外的读者联系起来,但实体、本地社区所培养的活力和多样观点不应被忽视。 危险在于将在线共识置于真正的知识探索之上,使写作变成对讨论的评论,而不是对其做出独特的贡献。

## 戒掉社交媒体会让人更多读书吗? Hacker News 上的一场讨论探讨了放弃社交媒体平台是否真的能带来更多阅读。许多评论者发现,仅仅删除社交媒体并不能自动导致阅读增加,反而他们转向了其他耗时的活动,比如 YouTube、游戏,或者无休止地浏览新闻聚合器,例如 Hacker News 本身。 一个关键点在于“无限”内容推送与书籍或电影明确的开始和结束之间的区别。社交媒体(以及类似平台)的无尽滚动让人难以停止,而一本读完的书则提供了一个自然的停止点。 几位用户强调了为阅读创造专门的时间和空间的重要性,使用电子阅读器(尤其是电子墨水型号)和阅读伙伴(读书俱乐部)等工具。另一些人指出,解决潜在问题,例如注意力缺陷或仅仅是偏爱容易消化的娱乐方式至关重要。最终,这场讨论表明,用一种消遣方式取代另一种消遣方式是很常见的,而真正培养阅读习惯需要更全面的时间管理和活动刺激方法。
相关文章

原文

Nguyen is hardly alone in this experience. BookTok, the sprawling and informal literary community on TikTok, has pushed many people to read outside their usual interests. You don’t have to dig deep into X, Reddit, or Instagram to find reading suggestions that would never appear on the year-end lists in newspapers or magazines, or on the rolls of the major annual awards. Obscure literary titles are reaching people they might not have reached before.

But, if we accept Nguyen’s proposition, and conclude that some of us are slogging through fewer bad books and getting more quickly to the stuff we like, does that actually constitute an improvement in reading culture?

Let’s place our hypothetical friend Dave, the military-history buff, in a book club that requires him to read a whole bunch of books he might have never picked up—the majority of which he finds pointless and a waste of his time. The club also provides a community of in-person friends with whom he can debate and disagree and even argue about what book should be next on the queue. Dave might not read many more books than he would have without the club, and he may enjoy the ones he reads less; the quality of the information he’s receiving may even deteriorate. He might find himself back in the same Reddit threads, hunting down things that are tailored to his interests.

But there are social benefits to reading something together. Someone might be able to jolt him out of his narrow tranche of interests. The experience of reading can benefit from the rockier mental terrain that books provide; the boredom and impatience that longer texts sometimes inspire can help push and prod one’s thinking more than things that are perfectly distilled.

I asked Nguyen whether she felt that her vision of a more finely tuned and online reading public might obviate the need for the in-person book club or literary society or writing workshop. She said that although social media and learning about books through the internet likely accelerated exploration, it also could, in her experience, restrict people almost entirely to their own tastes. “You have the ability to create a filter bubble that’s more impermeable,” she said.

Social media does create a powerful consensus—on the internet, everything tends to grow quickly toward one source of light— and an argument can be made that a slower, more fractured network of in-person, localized arguments might ultimately offer up more intellectual variety. When I asked Nguyen about this, she mentioned the Ninth Street Women, a group of Abstract Expressionist artists who worked in the postwar period, and her own displaced nostalgia for the idea of artists and writers meeting in physical spaces with similar goals in mind. “It just inherently feels more vibrant if it’s in a physical space than if you Substack notes at the same time that all your friends are posting on Substack notes,” she said. But she also pointed out that such movements tend to be quite insidery, and that a lot of the most successful writers on platforms like Substack are people who might not exactly fit into the New York City literati. This seems undeniably true to me. It might be nice to go to the same bars and contribute to the same small journals and stare very seriously at the same art work in the same galleries, but such a life feels both anachronistic and annoying today.

In another of her notes for writers, Nguyen proclaims:

I, controversially, am pro-social media. If you are writing about art, you just make all your social media about contemporary art and art critics and new art releases, and you create this funneled world that reinforces the thing you’re trying to do.

I have tried similar tactics in the past, especially when I was writing about specific subjects, such as education policy or A.I. But what I found wasn’t really a sharpening of insight, but, rather, a tightened focus on the social-media consensus, which was largely dictated by the people who posted the most on any given topic. Even in moments when I wasn’t writing directly about some tweet I had seen, I was still gesturing toward it. Writing, in this form, felt more like sticking a comment bubble on an aggregated stream of news stories, social-media posts, and an assortment of video podcasts. Most pundits—at least those who comment on the world in columns, newsletters, or on podcasts—are doing some form of this. Taken together, such writing forms “the discourse.”

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com