Despite the evident smugness of her claims, it appears Tomalin raises a very pertinent issue in modern culture. It is not merely children whose attention spans are suffering yet they appear to be the group most thoroughly affected. Technology has given its best shot at increasing productivity by decreasing time. The equation is simple now – move fast, do more, think less. The internet knows things for you, your computer remembers them for you and your phone reminds you of them whenever you require. Even scientist have ironed-up - at Cornell University in New York, Dr Michael Schmidt and his colleagues have created a software package by the name of Eureqa which uses a Darwinian process to analyse data and produce the most likely formulae explanation. While the obvious benefits are the ease and fluency with which one can remain organized, (and for the scientist - a fall in sleepless nights of data analysis) the introduction of such simple methods at too early a stage can infringe the child’s long term memory. A study at Harvard University led by Dr Betsy Sparrow, has proven that the use of Google can affect the way the brain works. Giving a set of facts to two separate groups of subjects, the study showed that those who believed the facts would be stored on the computer put little to no effort in remembering them, while the other group who believed they would be lost had considerably better results at recalling the facts. Such a process of, what one may call, devolution of memory (or in other words adaptation to the technology) is certainly harming children. What’s the point of knowing how many were killed in the Second World War when you can ask Google and receive 260, 000, 000 results in 0.18 seconds?
Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the internet’s database has fuelled the curiosity of millions who would, otherwise, have no way of knowing how to make jam or how many different types of sausage there are. (More than 1200 in Germany alone, before you scroll off searching.) Further, it seems foolish to assume, as Tomalin appears to do, that our parents were keen Dickens enthusiasts in their time. The truth is most children do not enjoy Dickens and not because of their short attention spans. There are two main reasons for the matter. The first being - many of Dickens’ novels were written for monthly instalments. Thus, whether he is a virtuous genius of the word or a divine talent for detail, Dickens wrote to a word limit which readers could spend a month dwelling over. The second reason is Dickens’s absolute immersion in popular culture. Like it or not, we would have all seen some adaptation of his works in some form (or on what Tomalin calls “dreadful television programs”). Like it or not, we would have all been fed a dreadful chapter or two of Great Expectations for months on end until we echo the perpetual groan of Pip at the hands of the terrifying criminal in a desperate attempt to explain how the dark graveyard provokes pity for the child protagonist. And that’s where the problem lies. The more we force children into mindless exam-cantered reading of any kind of quality literature the more were strip the work of its most essential entertainment value.
Thus, I would merely advise Ms Tomalin that next time she renders herself capable of sweeping generalizations about our youth and society’s ability to consume literature that is rich in description and detail, she should have a quick glance at the much too dreadful list of best-selling books of all time (on the even more dreadful Internet) . There, she would find none other than Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities at number one, followed shortly by J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Are you still with me? Or are you watching the “dreadful television program” adaptation of this article already?
Mirela Ivanova
