Dis is a gr8 article!

N. Katherine Hayles presents an interesting contrast between close reading of print literature and text and digital reading in her essay entitled "How We Read: Close, Hyper, Machine." She argues that close reading is the very practice that gives value to the literary discipline, and it is diminished when one converts to digital reading. This "screen reading of digital materials" creates a problem, particularly among those in junior high up through graduate school, for these individuals are reading printed text less well since their reading skills in general are on the decline (62). This overall idea makes me think of Facebook and other forms of social media where it is commonly accepted, if not expected, to deliberately misspell words and to use improper grammar. (Can I say 'to butcher the English language' on here?) Furthermore, these forms of social media are used as outlets to procrastinate and hinder those individuals from doing real work, from reading actual print literature and doing such close readings that Hayles outlines in her essay. Yet, it is interesting that these various types of social media also include applications on their websites with texts similar to scholarly articles, even texts similar to highly revered (or at least well-known) newspapers. Take, The Washington Post Social Reader, for example. It provides its readers with various topics that one would encounter in the actual newspaper or perhaps CNN. But here's the catch--it is on Facebook. This creates a digital atmosphere for its readers, therefore altering the way the brain reads and processes the information since individuals read in the shape of the letter 'F' when viewing digital texts rather than the traditional z-line. According to Hayles, much information is lost towards the end because viewers are looking more towards the left side of the screen rather than all the way across.

This adoption of newspaper articles--what I would consider more than just mindless reading--on digital interfaces and social media makes me consider Hayles's words in a different sense, reconsidering if at least some, not all, of these articles on the application are not very ingenious. I would never utilize them in an essay, they are not scholarly, I would certainly go to CNN or a more credible source for more information; yet, I still felt like they hold some credibility and would require some thinking. The conclusion I can draw after reading Hayles is that although I would not close-read these articles--or anything on a social media interface, for that matter--the traditional print medium, particularly of literature and scholarly texts, is the better alternative. It allows room for close readings, more thinking, and innovative thought. I believed this all along. Yet, Hayles's article made me realize that there is, in a sense, a dark gray area, and I think this social reader, for example, is one of them.