Most people are never choosing between Being and Time and an HN thread. But if they were forced to choose, we already know which one would dominate sheer engagement.
That doesn’t mean HN replaces philosophy — it just means that attention has its own economics. And any medium that captures attention will inevitably show qualities (good and bad) that heavyweight works simply can’t compete with.
The novels are unfinished though and I hardly believe they will be completed by him seeing how the penultimate novel has taken him over a decade to do about 75% of it and him being 77 already. I would never start a series I know it is unlikely to be completed.
30 years later (give or take a week), I don't expect to ever see the end; I have a feeling GRRM has kind of lost interest/passion in the Song of Fire and Ice series, since he's started churning out other stuff like Dunk, but you know what, its ok.
I also read the War Against the Chtorr series by David Gerrold. That also started in 1983, but the last published book, the 4th of 7, came out in 1993. Gerrold being 81, despite his claims for almost a decade that books 5 and 6 are near completion, I am confident I will not see the end of the series written by him :-(
That was true for GRRM twenty years ago, but not today.
But maybe he will; I'm actually several books behind at this point -- I'm pretty much waiting for him to finish so I can (re) read the whole thing from start to finish.
Finish what you start — When starting a work that has readers or viewers, complete it if it is financially rewarding to do so. You have unfortunately made an aesthetic promise to your readers in exchange for money. Suck it up.
Keep Your Customers Informed — If you will not be able to do the first, inform people as soon as possible.
And what on earth is is an 'aesthetic promise'?
Back a few years ago plenty of people would have done this if it had been offered. Maybe that would've helped his writer's block.
from reading the article "aesthetic promise" seems to be "that particular bit of aesthetic satisfaction that you counted on when starting out on the series", in other words, one of the aesthetic promises of a continuing series of books is that there is a conclusion, so you read one book and the next, expecting that at some point they will all be put together into a whole.
Rather like how readers of Dickens day started reading his serialized novels in their papers expecting that the novel would in fact have an ending.
As someone who can relate, I advise revisiting that stance. I discovered there is a lot of value to be gained from some unfinished works, and there are some finished works which would had best be left unfinished.
Well said. Articles like these bring a sort of relief to me from the constant chaos of short-form media and the like. Very refreshing.
Now the problem is quality and production. Studios don't have to be very selective at all any more so median quality has gone way down. Streaming platforms have a ton of content and terrible discovery which means there are huge volumes of mid content and a few gems that unless they are popular are impossible to find.
Publishing had a huge demographic change and is suffering from a different kind of bias than in decades past which has the same kind of diversity-limiting effect, just substituting different groups being promoted and left behind.
Culturally all over media production there's also a problem with a difficult to make distinction – "trying to be diverse" vs "actual diversity" and the imbalance is pushing people into silos: politically, culturally, and in every other way.
I assure you, by sheer virtue of quantity, no matter what criteria you use YouTube/TikTok/Shorts/etc has a [set of videos] which demonstrates quality similar to any novel or literary work.
It's true there's more garbage out there than ever before, but this is an artifact of democratization of creation and this is good imho. I also reject the premise that time to creation is an indication of quality.
The algorithm doesn't select for mediocrity - it selects for viewership, but regardless there are millions of creators at there that aren't optimizing for views anyway. It's the same reason some set of random blog posts or comments on sites such as this one will have quality similar to snippets of the highest quality technical documentation. Sheer diversity and quantity will always win.
anyway, as for the statistics, for the case of YouTube since there are is no forced directive to which all videos must follow (creatively), you can treat all videos as random attempts. then it's just stats to show that such a distribution will have outliers that match or exceed in subjective quality the gate kept works (traditional tvs or literature).
If you want to argue that art is created by pure randomness that’s fine, but I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement.
why not? seems like a tautology. what's a robust set of criteria we can use the evaluate this objectively. I bet you TikTok will win. mind you I am not saying the average TikTok is good, just that there's probably some set of videos that that are of comparable quality than something put together over a longer period of time like a novel.
Infinite monkeys with infinite time could surely also produce something spectacular and eye-opening, statistically speaking. But umm, you’d have to wait infinite time for it to be done, so it’s not really efficient when time is a finite resource.
But that’s why comparing subjective qualities of different things is a waste of time.
YouTube has many highly educational videos that are better than most professional production tv, especially for the hard sciences.
Edit: to phrase it differently, GP stated that among the huge quantity of content on TikTok and YouTube some short form videos are are as artistically valuable as the best examples of any other more traditional media forms. The short form content on both platforms isn’t all good, but there is so much variety that some of it is. You responded that Coca Cola isn’t an Imperial Stout. It isn’t, but that has absolutely nothing to do with GP’s point.
Could you provide some examples that match the best literary works? I'd love to see them. Edit: Here are some proposed examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46388246
Nothing prevents the video medium from matching literature - full-length films, for example, are on that level. I think there are two drawbacks to short video: First, the amount of content - their length - limits what they can accomplish, like short stories are limited. Second, the medium hasn't had time to mature as an artform; novels and film, for example, were both around for a long time before there was much great art.
I think the main concern with short form video isn't taste or appetite, but just the ability to digest.[0]
Though the effects on attention might be more acute than we think. A friend of mine found that he's able to read books just fine, if he just switches off his electronics first. Suddenly his brain comes back online...
[0] See also: The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance [even when switched off]
Sometimes a friend would show me their feed and I'd be shocked at how different the content they are presented by their version of the algorithm.
There are a lot of people putting a lot of effort to create very interesting content and we should not belittle their work just to fein intellectual superiority.
There's really nothing inherently wrong about the format.
"Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the 'content' of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind...The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance. The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception." — Marshal McLuhan, Understanding Media
Who is OC?
I have not seen that particular jargon before but it rhymes with OP (Original Poster) that I was able to figure it out from context.
Who takes this stuff as gospel? Academics who study critical theory?
Any form of media isn't bad as long as it's analytical, i.e., one that forces you not just to be an observer all the time. Most content on such platforms is designed to keep your brain constantly stimulated so you never shift your attention to think. The stimulation and the dopamine hits just keep you hooked to it. They give little time for contemplation, encouraging passive consumption.
When consuming long‑form content in any format, you get bored or drift just enough to think your own thoughts as you consume. But when consuming short‑form content, you are forced not to think unless you choose to pause; if you get distracted, you might think you missed something, which you don't want to do.
Information‑dense content is not good in any way, whether academic or entertainment. It doesn't leave you with any time to think on your own, discuss with yourself or the creator, dismiss some faulty thoughts, and eventually form an opinion of your own that you want to discuss with someone, somewhere.
That being said, not everything has to be long form content. Short content can provide concise information where needed, also serve as a gateway to deeper exploration, if the viewer follows up. I am not sure how that can be encouraged as most do not choose to do, as they are drowned with it and never get time to explore deeper into topics they want to.
> A closer look reveals that by vastly increasing the market for the published word, paperbacks also vastly increased the opportunities to make a living writing serious books
We can grant that this is true and yet it doesn't seem to provide encouragement. The equivalent today would be slop TikTok demand vastly increasing the opportunity for "serious" TikToks, whatever those may be.
A 'serious TikTok' is not a film. To think a film and a TikTok are alike is to make an elementary mistake in media analysis.
I can buy that we're going to get an explosion in fantastic short-form content. I'd say that the _Almost Friday TV_ group, who started a few years ago, are an example.
But this remains terrible news for predecessor mediums, who will suffer diminished demand and a general decline in the competency of audiences to enjoy those mediums ("great writers need great readers").
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...
Paperbacks will now only be sold in the larger trade paperback format.
(Phones work better in a jacket, too—I think we made a mistake running away from that clothing style, they’re like wearable purses that also make you look nicer. Sure suits are kinda wasteful with the way the jackets get downgraded if the pants are destroyed, but odd jackets we should have held on to!)
Jackets are dope, though. Get some summer-weight ones and even in that season you don’t have to use trouser/jeans pockets. So nice.
It’s basically a looser way of wearing your stuff on you, than pants pockets. Less welded-to you. At some point I realized I disliked summer starting because coats and front-pocket/pouch hoodies went away and I had to start carrying things in my pants again. Later, I came to like the standard pocket systems on blazers & friends way more than hoodies and (modern casual) coats, and discovered that with the right fabric and (lack of) lining choices I could wear them in almost any weather if I wanted to (I don’t, every day, but weather’s no longer a major reason not to)
(I am not saying I’m right, just explaining what I get out of it over extra pants pockets)
There's a huge amount of indie fiction that really wants to be in pocket-size mass-market print format (for those buyers who prefer paper to ereaders), for ergonomics and some of the pulp aesthetic, but it's forced to trade paperback trim.
tikok/YT shorts/IG reels is many orders of magnitude higher supply of slop than Simon Schuster paperbacks
Paperbacks required authors to spend the same amount of time/effort to create content with a vastly expanded market and distribution mechanism.
TikTok and Insta created N creators to M consumers where N is nearly the same as M. Making the distribution channels bigger but effortless to create content doesn’t magically equate quality paperbacks with short form hummingbird-attention videos.
TikTok isn’t much bigger than open mics?
When reading for long hours, or for a short time over days and weeks- it teaches you to concentrate, to have some kind of discipline. It helps you focus and develop empathy. Reading is fundamentally different for the reader, and it makes them do other things well. Reading trash trains you to graduate to serious books- this is true for many.
But consuming TikTok readies you for more TikTok. More Shorts and Reels and Snaps. Wathing short form stuff damages one's ability to do other things as well.
And from the creators' perspective, I think trying to keep up with short form media for engagement's sake actually impedes their ability to create more serious stuff.
I don't totally miss his point, though. When smartphones and "internet places" spread as media, those already ready for serious stuff will graduate to those. And yes, these places will have a small role to play.
But they are definitely more negative than positive.
I set a limit to avoid too much TikTok. And also TikTok often shows me 3-10 minute educational content, which I consider pretty well made. Dan McClellan talks about bible, form example. Or Jason Pargin on different topics. Brittney Hartley on nihilism and atheism.
They miss the fundamental issue with social media that was never true before.
The answer is data. No other media before ever had so much information about every individual that consumed it. No media before could tailor their content at an individual level. About the most you could tailor your content to was a zip code.
This is the problem with TikTok. It’s not that the quality of content is low. It’s that TikTok knows exactly what you like and when you like it, and can give you the exact content to scratch that itch at the time.
There are several problems with this.
- It sucks up all your time. - You’re never uncomfortable and/or consuming content that isn’t what you already want at the time. That means you are rarely exposed to anything that isn’t releasing dopamine all the time and it means you’re rarely challenged.
This makes me question whether you've tried to use TikTok for an extended period of time - say, 30 minutes a day for a month or so.
I liken it more to a skinner box. It will constantly show you low dopamine videos (+ ads) in between "hits" of content that are actually relevant to your interests to keep you hooked. You keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling past what is basically garbage to find the next "good" video. Sometimes you get many "good" videos in a row!
As far as not being challenged, I'm not sure about that. TikTok is always trying to learn more about you and your interests and hobbies and what videos keep you watching for longer. This means that it also frequently shows you videos outside of your "bubble" as a test to see if you're also interested in other topics. Over the past ~3 years, I have had a ton of engaging conversations with others and discovered SO MANY books, games, TV shows, movies, and hobbies because of what is basically an "everything recommendation engine". Most of the books I read this year (well over 100) were recommended by people on TikTok and were novels that I otherwise would have never even given a second glance.
I have very mixed feelings about TikTok. On one hand, it has led me to so many things I wouldn't have found otherwise (in a way that Reddit, HN, Bluesky, and other communities have failed). But it is also a depressing time suck that can get you to waste hours of your time on garbage and nonsense. Like most things in life, you get out what you put in.
Filter bubbles have become so standardized that people have forgotten what being challenged is like.
This is enough of a downside to say all the other positives are irrelevant. You could call this “brain rot” for the masses.
That's one book ever third day. Are you really challenging yourself and expanding your mind, or are these just time wasters?
I listen to audiobooks while I walk the dog, which at 4x 30min walks ends up being 120min/day. At 2x speed that alone is ~4 hours of progress per day. I also listen while cooking and cleaning which adds up to a _lot_ of time.
Namely far-right, xenophobic content, mixed with subversive propaganda pushed by state actors.
I think the best question to assess it is does this make us better people or not, and to what degree? From what I have seen, the answer is it seems to be pretty significantly de-skilling us in attention, agency, nuance, psychological wellbeing, etc. It makes us more vulnerable to influence and manipulation. The businesses that benefit the most from deploying it are advertising-based, which naturally leads to surveillance and algorithms and pace of consumption that maximizes addiction. The messages that perform best are emotional and attention seeking. There is no information quality control. The consumption pattern it suggests leaves no room for thinking, processing emotion, or nuance.
The personal crusade I'm on is to build a competing product at the quality level of TikTok/Insta that diverts interest & attention toward books, which as a medium is both a lot more of a known quantity and whose consumption naturally results in longer attention spans, greater literacy, and all the nth order consequences of written culture. It's great that things like BookTok exist but ultimately that energy & activity needs to find its way over to a healthier home.
> build a competing product at the quality level of TikTok/Insta that diverts interest & attention toward books, which as a medium is both a lot more of a known quantity and whose consumption naturally results in longer attention spans, greater literacy, and all the nth order consequences of written culture
This sounds great in theory and has been tried a few times (see: Goodreads, Storygraph, Worm.so and a few others) but without the social aspect I think it is difficult to gain traction. A lot of my favorite books I've found by going to local bookstores and looking at the employee recommendations.
Agree social & network effects are essential to achieving the mission. We (Margins) are building that part out now after spending the last year and a half perfecting the single player experience, it's very early but so far it's going great and we went viral again this holiday season. Social also needs something different than the 'let's make an early 2010s social product' approaches I keep seeing people trying, that stuff just cannot work in the age of AI bots poisoning the commons.
I don't think any of the existing players are close to the quality levels of TikTok/Insta, certainly not GR or SG, and there's always new copy/paste projects that come and go, its kinda become a genre of solo dev project like weather apps. I also think all these Goodreads-like apps are following the wrong formula to win the mainstream, they tend to get stuck appealing to niche user interests. Of all of them Fable made the best attempt at it but wasn't ever original enough in formula or high enough in quality, and they burned through $27m largely failing to find PMF and sold for peanuts.
Local bookstores are necessary/essential parts of winning back attention from social media and offer the unique value of physical presence and community, but will never be sufficient to get all the people addicted to these digital drugs away from their apps. Apps really are powerful things that offer unique experiences that people have come to expect, so I think a realistic theory of change involves an app being the medium to route attention to healthier ends. How exactly to do that is indeed the challenge!
It absolutely is. Ticktock is the bottom of the barrel.
Books, and to some extent film, are the only media which aren't absolutely flooded with advertising. Print serial media are (though it's rapidly vanishing), music is (through both broadcast and streaming services, though not via direct media purchases), serial video (television, cable, streaming services, YouTube, and of course social media, are all absolutely saturated with advertising. Which is what the data are feeding, of course.
That Newport fails to make this distinction, and that the goal of TikTok et al are to absolutely engross your attention and time, is a critical failure of this piece.
The paperback vs hardback is more like Netflix vs cinema. Tiktok / short form video is like newsreels in Roger Rabbit, where the 'toons make the content.
High quality -> You can attend to a few things with high degree of complexity. Low quality -> You can attend to a lot of easy stuff.
EOD - Dopamine regulation now is based on how you train your attention.
So the problem is more sinister than the "time sink". What you don't use, you lose. So once we spend enough time in low quality, it takes a lot of effort to get back to higher levels.
tormeh•1mo ago