I recently heard an interview with Rose Horowitch where she talked about the end of reading in our society. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvLgE...) She had just written the cover story for the latest issue of The Atlantic, titled “The End of Reading Is Here." Rose is in her twenties. She had realized she wasn't reading anything serious or complex anymore, and when she made an effort to return to better reading habits, she found it difficult. Her thesis is that the short attention span encouraged by our online culture has already altered our brains and the way we read. It's made us very fast at digesting short bits of information, but unable to cope with the long form, things like novels, or analytical prose.

The fact that no one is reading the longer form anymore means that no one will be writing it either, and she points out that this is a step backward for humanity.

The act of composing a complex sentence or paragraph pushes the writer into a different, higher form of reasoning, which is then reproduced in the reader. When this is gone, humanity has lost the ability to engage with complex issues.

Rose talked about the difference between spoken and written communication, and while it's true that oratory and the ability to speak extemporaneously are valuable, necessary, and important means of moving and motivating people, content delivered this way lacks something that written content possesses. A great novel can move you in a way that a youtube personality can't. And the ability to edit and correct, and so improve the content before publishing, is inherent in the written medium, and a vital part of the process.

This got me thinking about story, which in its early stages, must have been improvised on the spot. How did it change once it began to be written down? And does it need to be written down, if its essence is a tale-teller speaking to an audience circled around the fire?