Over the past few years I?ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn?t going—so far as I can tell—but it?s changing. I?m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I?m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I?d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That?s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I?m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.
在过去的几年里，我老有一种不祥之感，觉得有什么人，或什么东西，一直在我脑袋里捣鼓个不停，重绘我的脑电图，重写我的脑内存。我的思想倒没跑掉—到目前为止我还能这么说，但它正在改变。我的思维方式在变。这种感觉在我阅读的时候尤为强烈。过去总是不费什么劲儿就能让自己沉浸在一本书或一篇长文章中，被其中的叙述或不同的论点深深吸引。我还会花数小时徜徉在长篇散文中。可如今这都不灵了。现在，我翻上两三页书，注意力就开始不集中了。我会变得烦躁，抓不住重点，开始想找点其他的事情做。我感觉我似乎要硬拖着我任性的大脑才能回到文章中。原本轻松自然的深度阅读，已然成了痛苦挣扎。
I think I know what?s going on. For more than a decade now, I?ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I?ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I?m not working, I?m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web?s info-thickets?reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they?re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don?t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)
我想我知道到底是怎么一回事了。十多年来，我在网上花了好多时间，在因特网的信息汪洋中冲浪、搜寻、添加。对作家而言，网络就像个天上掉下来的聚宝盆。过去要在书堆里或图书馆的期刊阅览室中花上好几天做的研究，现在几分钟就齐活。“谷歌”几下，快速点开几个链接，就可以找到我所需要的事实或者精炼的引证。即使在工作之余，我也很有可能在信息丰富的网络里遨游—收发电子邮件、浏览头条新闻、点 击博客、看视频、听播客或者只是从一个链接跳转到一个又一个链接。(超链接常被比作脚注，但是和脚注不一样，超链接不仅仅链接到相关作品;它们还驱使你去点击他们。)
For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they?ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired?s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.
对我来说，像对其他人也一样，网络已经成为了一种通用的媒介，大部分信息都通过这个渠道进人我们的眼、耳，最后进人我们的大脑。能从这样一个异常丰富的信息库中直接获取信息，其优点是很多的，而且也得到了广泛的描述和适当的赞誉。“硅存储器的完美记忆性，”《连线》杂志的克莱夫?汤普森写道，“对于思想来说是一个大实惠。”但是这个实惠是要付出代价的。(此文来自袁勇兵博客)就像媒体理论家马歇尔?麦克卢恩在上世纪60年代所指出的那样，媒体可不只是被动的信息渠道。它们不但提供了思想的源泉，也塑造了思想的进程。网络似乎粉碎了我专注与沉思的能力。现如今，我的脑袋就盼着以网络提供信息的方式来获取信息:飞快的微粒运动。曾经我是文字海洋中的潜水者，现在我则像是摩托艇骑手在海面上风驰电掣。
I?m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they?re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I?m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”
我并不是唯一一个有此感觉的人。当我向文学界的朋友和熟人提到我在阅读方面的困扰，许多人说他们也有同样的感受。他们上网越多，在阅读长文章时，就越难集中精力。我所关注的一些博主也提到了类似的现象。斯科特?卡普开了一个有关在线媒体的博客，最近他承认自己已经完全不读书了。“我大学读的是文学专业，曾经是一个嗜书如命的人，”他写道。“到底发生了什么事呢?”他推测出了一个答案:“如果对我来说，通过网络来阅读的真正理由与其说是我的阅读方式发生了改变，比如，我只是图个方便，不如说是我的思维方式在发生变化，那么我该怎么办呢?”
Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can?t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I?ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”
布鲁斯?弗里德曼经常撰写有关电脑在医学领域应用的文章。他在早些时候同样提到因特网如何改变了他的思维习惯。“稍长些的文章，不管是网上的还是已经出版的，我现在几乎已经完全丧失了阅读它们的能力。”在密歇根大学医学院长期任教的病理学家布鲁斯，弗里德曼在电话里告诉我，由于上网快速浏览文章的习惯，他的思维呈现出一种“碎读”特性。“我再也读不了《战争与和平》了。(此文来自袁勇兵博客)”弗里德曼承认，“我失去了这个本事。即便是一篇长达三四段的博客也难以消化。我只能略微浏览一下。”
Anecdotes alone don?t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits , conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the
scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they?d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they?d save a long article, but there?s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it
仅仅是趣闻轶事还不能证明什么。我们仍在等待长期的神经学和心理学的实验，这将给因特网如何影响到我们的认识一个权威的定论。伦敦大学学院的学者做了一个网络研读习惯的研究并发表了研究结果。该研究指出，我们可能已经彻底置身于阅读与思考方式的巨变之中了。作为五年研究计划的一部分，学者们检测了计算机日志，它跟踪记录了两个流行的搜索网站的用户行为。其中一个网站是英国图书馆的，另一个是英国教育社团的，他们提供了期刊论文、电子书以及其他一些文献资源。他们发现，人们上网时呈现出“一种浮光掠影般的形式”，总是从一个资源跳到另一个资源，并且很少返回他们之前访问过的资源。他们常常还没读完一两页文章或书籍，就“弹”出来转到另一个网页去了。有时候他们会保存一个篇幅长的文章，但没有任何证据表明他们曾经返回去认真阅读。
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of
text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it?s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.
多亏铺天盖地的网络文本，更别说当下时兴的手机短信，可供我们阅读的东西很可能比上世纪七八十年代要多了，那时，我们选择的媒体还是电视。但是，这已是另一种阅读模式，背后隐藏的是另一种思考方式—也许甚至是一种全新的自我意识。“不仅阅读的内容塑造了我们，”塔夫茨大学的发展心理学家、《普鲁斯特与鱿鱼:阅读思维的科学与故事》的作者玛丽安娜?沃尔夫说，“阅读方式也体现了我们自身。”沃尔夫担忧，网络所倡导的将“丰富”与“时效性”置于首位的阅读方式可能已经削弱了那种深度阅读能力。深度阅读能力的形成应归功于早期印刷术的发明，有了它，长而复杂的散文作品也相当普遍了。然而，她说，当我们在线阅读时，我们往往只是一“信息解码器”而已。我们对文句的设释，心无旁鹜、深度阅读时形成的丰富的精神联系，这些能力很大程度上已经消失了。
Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It?s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic
characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms,
such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.
沃尔夫认为，阅读并非人类与生俱来的技巧，它不像说话那样融人了我们的基因。我们得训练自己的大脑，让它学会如何将我们所看到的字符译解成自己可以理解的语言。而媒体或其他我们用于学习和练习阅读的技术在塑造我们大脑的神经电路中扮演着重要角色。实验表明，表意字读者(如中国人)为阅读所创建的神经电路和我们这些用字母语言的人有很大的区别。这种变化延伸到大脑的多个区域，包括那些支配诸如记忆、视觉设释和听觉刺激这样的关键认知功能的部位。我们可以预料，使用网络阅读形成的思维，一定也和通过阅读书籍及其他印刷品形成的思维不一样。
Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.
1882年，弗里德里希?尼采买了台打字机。此时的他，视力下降得厉害，长时间盯着一张纸会令他感觉疲惫、疼痛，还常常引起剧烈的头痛。他只得被迫缩减他的写作时间，并担心自己今后恐怕不得不放弃写作了。但打字机救了他，起码一度挽救过他。他终于熟能生巧，闭着眼睛只用手指尖也能打字—盲打。心中的词句又得以倾泻于纸页之上了。
But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche?s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “?thoughts? in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper
然而，新机器也使其作品的风格发生了微妙的变化。尼采的一个作曲家朋友注意到他行文风格的改变。他那已经十分简练的行文变得更紧凑、‘更电文式了。 “或许就因为这个仪器，你甚至可能会喜欢上一个新短语，”这位朋友在一封信中提到，在他自己的作品中，他“在音乐和语言方面的‘思想’常常要依赖于笔和纸的质量”。