Reading

So apparently my rambling entries are a "superb" read if you can stand to actually start reading them instead of scrolling down and being intimidated by the appearance of length. Thanks Jay! That comment (on LJ) actually meant a ton, haha!

(I'll probably be throwing up entries like that for a while, if only because it's nice to get all introspective when you're in a good place in your life.)

The funny thing is that I know people do that…before they even start reading anything, they'll flip through it to gauge the length and then decide then and there whether or not it's worth the effort it's going to take to read it. This happens with books, articles in newspapers and magazines, blog entries, and basically any other place you're going to find a significant collection of text.

I remember back in college, whenever we were given a reading assignment, the very first thing everyone would do is a little math: he wants us to read how many pages? Depending on their own personal aversion to large numbers, they will then approach the assignment as either tedious or quick or not-worth-their-time and so on. So, even before they have read the actual content of the text, they already have a very strong opinion about it…simply based on its length.

Now, stepping away from the textbook analogy for a moment (as the content can occasionally be dry and most of the time you're only reading it because you have to), let's have a look at how this works for "voluntary" reading material.

Sometimes, you'll read a book because someone else recommended it to you. They assure you that it is a good read, that you will be a better person for it, that upon reading it you will gain lots and lots of sex, that it contains the key to happiness and that shiny new BMW Z-4 Roadster you've always wanted. (Man was I ever conned.) Therefore, you consider reading it, no matter the length…though you will naturally choose to read the blurb to see if you really are interested in the topic.

Picture yourself wandering through a store (and for the love of god don't nitpick this section I know I'm not you for fuck's sake just work with me here). You're just glancing at titles off the shelf, occasionally reaching out and grabbing a book written by an author you like, a title that sounds particularly catchy, or a cover that's flashy and cool-looking. You pick up the book for any of these reasons and, almost automatically, turn it over to read the blurb on the back. Maybe (if it's not wrapped up in plastic wrap), if the blurb is intriguing enough, you flip through the first few pages.

To accommodate the changing times, I should probably also add that you get to access things like reviews, summaries, blurbs, and user comments on this nifty little place called the internets.

When it comes to newspapers, you read the headlines and generally only read the articles with headlines that catch your attention. (I cheat and use Reuters.) For the rest, you skim through. In magazines, the process generally goes along the lines of flip-flip-flip-flip-flip-reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaad-flip-flip-flip-flip-ooohthatiscute-flip- flip-flip-reeeeeeaaaaaad (because really no one looks at the table contents in most magazines unless it's like The Economist or something). Short of a lengthy flight or a magazine centered around a very specific interest, very few people actually read every single article in every single magazine that they happen to pick up.

Enter the human psyche. Very few people actually want to read anything unless there's something in it for them. Usually, that' interest that stems from a preview or a catchy title/headline.

The only time you're going to sit and start reading something that you know nothing about prior to the act of sitting down and picking it up is if it looks short and quick.

Which, let's be honest, is pretty fair in all respects. No one really has the time to waste reading a long article about something that they may not even find interesting. So they stick to things that are short and take little time to read through. This way, even if the topic was stupid or sucked or whatever, at least they didn't waste a bunch of hours reading it.

So here's my question: when approached with a long article on a blog or even a forum post, do you scroll down to see how long it is before you even begin reading? If yes, do you often groan when all you see going down the screen is a blur of text and, as a result, often find yourself disinclined to read it?

How often do you really stop to read a random blog or forum post without scrolling down first to check the length?

I ask only to lead to a conclusion on the human psyche. We like to know, in advance, what we're spending our precious time on. For textbooks, we have grades. For books, we have blurbs. For news, we have the need to stay updated. For magazines, we have personal, topical interest. But in the world of blogs, where topics range far and wide across tentacle porn, video cards, the latest trends in scarves, how to ace an interview, introspective journal entries, bored kids whining about life and darkness and pain while posting from their US$1500+ computers, giggly accounts of sexual exploits, gaming expectations, movie reviews, music reviews, book reviews, blog reviews, review reviews…and the most random of rants…it is nearly impossible to know what you're looking at without actually starting to read something.

There are no blurbs, no summaries. Occasionally you have a catchy, informative title but let's face it, seldom do they venture beyond of realms of "lol this is cool" or "omg wtf." Even rarer are those bloggers who categorize every damned blog post they make. Rarer still is to find a blogger who consistently posts something meaningful, interesting, or engaging. So, the best defense you as a human have is to check out the length of the post.

If it's too long, you figure that no one on the internet could possibly post so much text so as to make it worth your time to muddle through. For all intents and purposes it could just be the most inane of rants with countless grammatical, logical, and factual errors. It is, after all, the goddamn internet. Birthplace of things like 4chan, orca stacks, and MySpace.

(Oh yes, yes she DID.)

Let's say you dive right into a blog post without knowing how long it is. Let's assume that it ends up being a whopping 2,500-word post.

Worst case scenario, you waste upwards of half an hour navigating your way though the chaotic muddle of keyboard bashing and reactionary thinking, to the point where you lose a few IQ points and probably get a bit ornery that people out there really think like that. (Even if it's just the internet.) Best case scenario, you surface refreshed from an entertaining, enlightening, informative, and probably humorous read that gives you perspective on something that you'd never before considered.

Run a quick cost-benefit analysis, adjusted for the lolinternetz factor, and generally speaking you're going to find that the chance of a best case scenario surfacing often enough to make saddling a whopping number of worst case scenarios worthwhile is horrifyingly slim.

Therefore, when you see an "lol wall-o-text crits you for 2500 dmg," you sigh, throw down your tl;dr card, and move on with your life, unmolested. Reading 50 words of utter retardation, after all, is far easier to stomach than 5,000 words of it.

Not to mention, some people are capable of being insightful and clever in under 200 words. So, statistically speaking, the speed required to read through sub-200-word posts is so much less than working through 2500+ word posts that you basically have a better chance of reading more fascinating articles if you stick to the short stuff than if you gambled with the long stuff.

It's just more time-efficient if you simply ignored anything particularly long to which you have zero attachment.

Welcome to the human psyche.

I, unfortunately, am incapable of keeping my insights short and simple.

WOE IS ME.