To be completely honest I did not enjoy reading Carr’s The Shallows. It felt as though he made it purposefully tedious and difficult to get through just to prove his point that the youth of today is poorly disciplined. That being said I found the class discussion to be enjoyable and much more interesting. I disagree with Carr; I don’t think that the Internet has shortened our attention spans (granted I have ADHD so my attention span functions differently). If anything I think it has made people more efficient in how they acquire information and more selective. I have read books much longer than The Shallows in shorter periods of time; the difference is that I found those books enjoyable so I didn’t mind devoting my attention to them. Carr argues that that is a lack of discipline, and maybe it is; but I think that if you can find a way to acquire the same information in a way that is easier for you then why not. There is already discipline required in sitting in a lecture, in writing a paper, and in how you compose yourself. People develop discipline from an early age and I don’t think that it is necessary to apply that discipline to every aspect of your life, especially if it’s less efficient.

Prior to this class I had never heard of the public and private self and I certainly would not have described myself as having more than one self. I very much do agree that modern people have more than one self and I think that it has had an impact on how we view others, it helps us to relate and humanize. I do disagree with Carr though. He argues that a weakened dichotomy of our two selves puts the structure of society in danger. There is evidence to support that; I’ll give him that. If one were to assume, as Carr has, that our society has blurred the lines of our two selves, then our countries current state is a good example of an unstable society in danger. The government is incredibly divided and consistently gridlocked, there is a grotesque amount of police brutality, and the economy is not doing so hot. And to an extent I do think that people’s personal, private views are getting in the way of needed progress. However I would argue that the ancient Romans were a society that lacked two selves and were still successful. Carr believes that silent reading was key to the development of two selves and the Romans were not a people who read silently. Politicians were always politicians, even in their homes, people would lose themselves completely (in ways that modern man would deem inappropriate); there was no clear division between the public and private. And yet, the Roman republic lasted 500 years. Obviously our society is more progressive than that (we don’t own people anymore for instance), but two selves were not necessary for the society to function. I think it is a gross over statement to say that if we change how we read it will put our society in danger.

What I find funny is that Carr argues for linear thinking and writes his book in that style, slowly building his argument chapter to chapter and connecting A to B to C; and yet, that is what made it so tedious for me. Each chapter is dedicated to its own drawn out explanation and I don’t think it created a solid argument.