I really wish I could appreciate these great human achievements in the arts, but at least for books, I don't think my tech-atrophied brain has the ability.
I really wish I could appreciate these great human achievements in the arts, but at least for books, I don't think my tech-atrophied brain has the ability.
For example, I have never read "The Sun Also Rises," but I looked at the sample on Amazon and came across this on the second page: "I mistrust all frank and simple people, especially when their stories hold together, and I always had a suspicion that Robert Cohn had never been middleweight boxing champion, and that perhaps a horse had stepped on his face..." After a few matter-of-fact paragraphs, the narrator suddenly slaps the reader with this frank and funny statement of his utter cynicism. That kind of thing pulls me in. I want to know more about this narrator and see what other shocking things he may have to say.
I suspect that in 100 years time, bestselling books particularly popular with today's tech addled brains will also be considered a bit dry and hard to relate to by the average reader.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_Also_Rises#Publication...
[1]: https://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/hemingway-ernest/....
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Whom_the_Bell_Tolls#Backgr...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea#Backgr...
Sure, the first eight print runs of The Sun Also Rises probably had a total circulation equivalent to the playthrough of some tediously-narrated niche videos on YouTube, and by 1961 when Hemingway was firmly established as a Great American Novelist it had as many copies over more than quarter of a century as Where the Crawdads Sing sells in a quarter, but I don't think you can infer anything much about attention spans from the appeal of literary fiction.
Those books have pretty good prose, it's perhaps not on the level of complexity of Hemingway (I've never read Hemingway so I couldn't say myself) but it is pretty complicated so I think there's definitely something to the argument that entertainment has 'dumbed down'.
> Still, the book sold well, and young women began to emulate Brett while male students at Ivy League universities wanted to become "Hemingway heroes." Scribner's encouraged the publicity and allowed Hemingway to "become a minor American phenomenon"—a celebrity to the point that his divorce from Richardson and marriage to Pfeiffer attracted media attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_Also_Rises#Reception
There's just no way a similar book written today could have this impact.
I can't say what constituted "most film" in 1926 (are we going by what sold the most tickets? big blockbusters versus daily newsreels & cartoons?) but if you look at the era of 1925-1927 it includes Phantom of the Opera, Battleship Potemkin, The Vanishing American, The Bat, Metropolis, and Wings. Many of this list is iconic to this day to where they continue to be referenced & emulated in pop culture that many people recognize even if they haven't seen the originals before.
Granted this discussion will be hamstrung by how much film has been "lost" with so much of that content no longer in living memory at all (to say if it was masterpieces or crappy filler).
Also, you don't have to read literature or novels. Read the narratives and nonfiction around what people experienced in times and places that will never be experienced again, and that youtube and netflix don't care about. Read about thoughts and reasoning that exceptional and forgotten people had in the 19th century that are ripe for rediscovery.
The death of attention span is real, but the idea that the substance of "content" now is of better quality than the writing in 1890 is a slander. It's just the difference between a quick, tasty, and a bit vulgar value meal at McDonald's vs. an actual high quality meal. The laziness gets addictive.
You could study some people who have gone to prison and have little opportunity for endless media consumption.
Go figure, you light up rooms with hundreds of candle-power like it's friggin' daytime, and have world-class entertainment of most any kind available at the press of a button like you're living in a World's Fair crossed with Vegas crossed with a Red Light district crossed with a video game arcade, and it's hard to sleep and you don't feel tired as early as you do if you don't do those things. Live like it's pre-war (more or less) and the problems vanish. Who'd have guessed?
Hard to keep that up in a modern world with two working adults who need to Get Shit Done at night and zero other people you know are living on that kind of schedule—plus, Winter nights are way too long—but it worked. Sun goes down, read or play cards or whatever by candle light (I found two beeswax candles next to each other were enough to read by—and you'll quickly figure out why really-old fireplace mantles often had mirrors behind them, if you didn't already know!) for an hour or so, and the yawns are coming hard and fast, time to go to bed.
Shit for air quality, so, that's a problem. Never did find a cheap battery-powered warm-light not-brighter-than-three-or-four-actual-candles lantern to replace the candles with, while I was trying it.
Once you're used to it, whole-room lighting seems blindingly bright and totally insane. Interesting for getting another perspective on ordinary modern life.
Anytime I turn on the main lights, it's like a shot of adrenaline as everything is just so bright.
You can still: read, write, play music, play card and board games, lift weights to some extent (I didn't—a bit contrary to the getting-tired, plus I just didn't keep it up long enough to build in anything like that, though nb you probably don't want to be attempting max-weight lifts in low lighting or otherwise doing anything that's not very-safe) or do many bodyweight exercises, take walks or run (night walks are nice!), talk, do limited chores or cleaning, plan meals (assuming written recipes, or books), and so on. There is a ton of stuff to do by candlelight, or in no lighting (including, ahem, partner activities). You won't run out of stuff to do if you've got any kind of varied tastes in activities at all—but you also won't be doing stuff so extremely engaging that it keeps you from noticing when you're tired.
If I'd kept it up, I'd have found a way to listen to "the radio" (but actually streaming or flacs or whatever) and had exceptions to the no-screens for, at least, setting that up initially. Goal would have been to still barely look at the screen, though: set an album or a few albums or a long playlist of podcast episodes or old radio show episodes (some of these are really fun!) to play, and mostly leave it alone. I'd also have probably made an exception for e-ink book reading devices, provided no cheating by using them to browse the web—that seems well within the spirit of the thing, to me, and unlikely to veer back into hyper-stimulative or way-too-bright territory.
Things I noticed:
As mentioned, full-room lighting is stupid-bright. Way brighter than needed, and that's an understatement. Made me recall some of my older relatives' long-owned houses and how many rooms didn't have built-in lighting, but just had a switch-controlled outlet with a lamp attached—even just having the light come from somewhere lower made the room less intensely-bright, all else being equal. That seems far saner to me now, than what's normal in new houses. Are you trying to take daytime-like photos indoors at night? No? Then your lights are probably way too bright, likely by an order of magnitude, than what's remotely necessary. There's no way that's not affecting sleep—right?
You do need to have a way to carry one or more candles. You don't want to have dedicated candles lit in every room (including bathrooms!) unless, I dunno, you have people over maybe. Could probably safely remove a lot of this need with a small number of very-dim night lights (some are way brighter than a couple candles, though! Gotta shop carefully) without ruining the whole exercise.
Candles are painfully bright if they're your only light source, they're nearby (say, you're reading), and you look right at them, even in passing. Very unpleasant. If I'd kept it up, I'd have had to find a way to shade them somehow.
In fact, though, to keep it up longer-term, I'd have had to find or build an electric alternative. Unscented candles that don't smell like absolute ass (once you've smelled anything other than the common petroleum-based ones, those smell like a chemical waste dump) are fairly expensive to burn, are a fire hazard (obviously), and harm air quality even when they're a relatively-decent material. Most e.g. portable camping lights are far too bright and are a too-cold temperature to replicate candlelight. I expect I'd have ended up building a few little battery-powered lanterns with the dimmest warm-temp LEDs I could find, or maybe even dim and under-driven filament bulbs to get a smoother light curve—they'll last a long time if you run them way under-spec, and the inefficiency hardly matters at powers that low.
One persistent change I've made as a result of this is having a very-dim-bulb warm-temp floor lamp (some cheap Ikea thing, with about the dimmest warm-temp LED bulb I could find that'd fit it) for my office. It's the only nighttime lighting I use in there, most of the time—rarely use my overhead light. Point it at the wall if I just want to avoid stubbing my toes on things, aim it almost at me if I'm reading. It's more than enough light. Been meaning to swap out the end-table lamp bulbs in the bedroom with something about 1/4 as bright, but keep forgetting.
Another thing is that the past is a little more relatable. I've lived with candles (if not long—but it's enough to notice some things!) and know the pain points and really get and appreciate tools & design features that were built with them (and oil lamps, rushes, all that stuff) in mind, in a way I didn't quite so well before. Stuff uncommon now that used to be somewhat-common, like family read-alouds of novels make more sense to me now (not only were books more expensive, so you might have fewer of them—it takes way less lighting for one person to read, than for five, which really matters when light is expensive! IIRC the Brontës were supposed to have done a lot of this, but I gather many people did)
What makes it hard to keep up is life. In the Winter, especially, even if I'd tried to keep doing this, I'd have had to set a cut-off later than sundown, no question—you can't realistically go no-electronics-or-lights at like 5:30PM. Nobody else lives like this. (Almost) no place you go with others at night is like this. Chores pile up during the day because stay-at-home spouses aren't the norm anymore, so by the time you have even a second of free time it's already night, or else you've deferred all the chores to night, and adding friction to those is not fun. Going out after dark anywhere (say, grocery shopping) kinda screws it up. It's just fairly inconvenient given that all of life is now built around having day-like lighting available at night.
However, I think getting a good chunk of the way toward it is feasible, and would probably bring many of the same benefits.
I grew up a bit like this. For long periods we turned the electricity off - to save money, not on principle - so in the evenings I read by candlelight. Indeed it's hard. It wasn't so difficult to do because we lived in the country and didn't need to "sync" with other people.
I'm thinking how to replicate some of this in my life now. It's difficult because I also want to write, blog, do research, and other screen-related things. OTOH I feel there's something very wrong about spending 10 hours of your day on-screen.
I wonder if there's room for a community to try to do some of this stuff together.
Contrast, for example that either of these books' narration allows a reader to fill in a lot of the blanks with experience, both real and imagined, constructing it for themselves even down to the temperature of the air, shade of light at dusk, smell of the air, exact tone and pitch of voice of a speaker. Vs. a video where the experience is fully narrated and scenes presented in 4k. Is the video 'more digestible' because it's a different thing being digested?
Not that these tables can't and often aren't reversed. Some vloggers say little, sometimes 'scaffolding' only some understanding through a bit of backstory, or allow their audience to similarly construct experiences of the pieces of a journey. And some books are instruction manuals, or unintentionally read as so.
A tool, be that video, text, audio, game, is only that. It's just a medium, a method that's surface to the deeper world view of the 'maker'.
I recon that it is considered one of the great and famous books, but it could have drastically been improved if he had had an editor. A modern author would have had one and would have produced a better book.
In fact, why shouldn't modern books be better? Nearly everything else is (compare central heating to a fireplace), and the rest disappear once you account for the price you pay for it.
And I fully empathize with your difficulty in appreciating such works of fiction. Maybe I ought to try reading one this summer myself...