The New York Times put out a pretty popular article debating whether or not reading online can actually constitute reading.  Well, reading is reading, isn’t it?  I obviously read that article online.  Does it mean that it wasn’t “worthwhile” or up to par with those that think learning can only come from “good books”?  Does the fact that more and more people turn to the internet to get their news mean they’re somehow dumber than those that get print ink on their fingers?  Or is the only way to really learn is to feel the weight of a book in your hands?

Of course, the article focuses on sites like fanfiction.net to counter the “reading is reading” argument, of which many stories make the English language twitch at how it’s portrayed.  Yeah, you’re sitting on your butt in front of a computer for hours reading stream-of-consciousness Mary Sue-isms.  But you’re reading.  A lot of what’s written on sites like fanfiction.net are not grammatically correct but neither are most people when they speak.  Does it mean we should all walk around talking in a stilted language in order to prove that we’re not lacking in gray matter?  I read stories on fanfiction.net.  Does it mean my test scores might suffer?

I didn’t grow up with the internet.  I had a slew of books at my disposal and still do.  Too many to fit on the shelves that are way too small for them.  I love books and nothing beats curling up on the couch and reading.  Can’t do that with a laptop.  But lets face it, Nora Roberts isn’t exactly John Steinbeck, now is she?  Is her work somehow better than a piece online because it’s in tangible, sniffable book form?  Is it not possible to find work that’s just as good online as you can buy in a brick and mortar store?  Maybe even better?

I think the problem a lot of people have with internet reading is that it’s completely unadulterated (well, most of it).  It doesn’t see the eyes of an editor and is printed in all it’s flawed glory.  I think people fear that, because that’s what people are reading instead of the finely tuned scripts that are chosen and bound by publishers, that younger generations are going to lack the intelligence and reading and writing comprehension because their learning from sources that they “shouldn’t” be learning from.  How dare we let those young ‘uns out into the world to learn for themselves, right?

I will agree that a lot of online reading is careless and shows a blatant laziness in the writer for not even bothering to run their work through spell check.  The thing is, if these are kids, do you really think they’d be able to get away with something like that in a classroom?  I don’t think slumping test grades are the fault of online reading.  I think it has more to do with parents not getting involved with their children and teachers being forced to pass kids they shouldn’t in order to keep school funding instead of, god forbid, actually educating them (thanks, No Child Left Behind!).  On top of that, the article is biased in parental involvement, focusing on affluent families from Connecticut to show that “they try but the internet sucks their kids in” instead of highlighting a family who’s “too busy” to deal with it all.  An obvious slant.

Another argument made against online reading is that it shortens attention spans.  I think TV already did a pretty good number on those but the internet certainly doesn’t help.  I’ll be the first to admit that my patience level and attention span is much shorter sitting in front of a computer than it is anywhere else (unless maybe pointless traffic).  Our brains adapt to the speed in which we work.  Considering the lightning fast connection of the internet, it’s only natural that people would grow impatient should they have to wait for something when they’re used to instant gratification.  TV programming has conditioned us for 15 minute attention spans, thanks to clock-work commercials.  With new technology comes new adaptations.  Did these people really not expect to have to conform to a mutating world?

Do I think digital mediums will replace print?  Not anytime soon.  Way too many readers much prefer a print version of whatever it is they’re reading compared something typed up on a screen.  But that doesn’t mean digital media is bereft of intelligent information.  I read online serials daily.  I also read print books.  Most of the research I’ve done in regards to the publishing world has been reading agent and editor blogs along with frequenting various websites and writing forums.  I don’t know how I would be as knowledgeable as I am now without the online sources I’ve scoured.  It can be done, of course, but with instant human connection via the internet and the ability to learn directly from the source, why not take that route?

Reading is reading and I think people should thank their lucky freakin’ stars that kids are doing something that mimics their idea of that.  So it’s considered (and some of it rightly is) subpar in the grammar department.  They’re still reading a story, aren’t they?  They’re utilizing their imaginations instead of droning off in front of the boob tube for six hours when they get home from school.  They’re engaging in conversations with others about political and environmental topics, scouring the internet for information to enlighten themselves and, really, furthering, not hindering, their intelligence (so long as they understand what it is they’re reading, as the article highlights kids’ inability to differentiate bogus informational sites from real ones).

Reading “good” books doesn’t necessarily hoist your IQ although it might increase your narcolepsy, not to mention the term “good” is subjective to begin with.  Do I think standardized testing should include a digital medium?  No.  It’s not necessary.  Kids don’t need to be tested on everything they come across in their lives.  But should we really try to force them away from reading on a screen to reading an ink and paper book?  I think it has more to do with people having not adjusted to the fact that reading, and worthwhile reading at that, regardless of what it is, can be done on a screen and not just from a book.  Obviously there are traditionalists in that crowd but if Hemingway is available in a downloadable PDF format, does it automatically make his work crap because it’s being read digitally?

Beggars can’t be choosers here, people.  Kids are reading.  Lets just be glad they’re doing it instead of trying to nitpick what medium they should be using.  So we’ll have a bunch of generations that speak like normal human beings instead of pretentious snobs yet, oh my god, they’ll still be able to write their own name without any assistance.  And they might even be able to get a few more sentences out without the snobbery crutch.  Who da thunk?