What do you think?
Rate this book
Attensity!: A Manifesto of the Attention Liberation Movement
A rallying cry to fight the commodification of human attention, with the tools we need to reclaim our humanity, by a group of writers, artists, and activists in the vanguard of the movement
“A stirring battle cry on behalf of our shared humanity against the forces that seek to diminish and degrade it. Downright invigorating. Just what the moment calls for.”—Chris Hayes, author of The Sirens’ Call
We all feel something is seriously wrong. Our attention—that essential ability to give our minds and senses to the world—is being trapped, gutted, and sold out from under us by an industry of immense technological and financial power. The heedless exploitation of this vital capacity by a handful of tech companies is harming us all, reducing our very selfhood to that which can be quantified, bought, and sold—and shaking the foundations of our democracy.
To push back against this “human fracking,” we need more than individual willpower or isolated efforts. We need a movement of collective resistance. Such a movement is beginning to bloom, and in this radical, first-of-its-kind guide, The Friends of Attention show us how to join the fight. We meet welders, nurses, poets, and surfers, all of whom are engaged in attentional practices. We learn to seek out sanctuaries—theaters and museums, houses of worship, dance parties—where together we can take refuge from the frackers. Attention Activism takes our apocalyptic present, turns it on its head, and reveals new vistas of human flourishing.
Drawing on a rich legacy of critical intellectuals and the creative wisdom of diverse traditions, Attensity! calls on us to come together to defeat the greedy dehumanizing forces of brute instrumentalization—and re-enchant the world.
“A stirring battle cry on behalf of our shared humanity against the forces that seek to diminish and degrade it. Downright invigorating. Just what the moment calls for.”—Chris Hayes, author of The Sirens’ Call
We all feel something is seriously wrong. Our attention—that essential ability to give our minds and senses to the world—is being trapped, gutted, and sold out from under us by an industry of immense technological and financial power. The heedless exploitation of this vital capacity by a handful of tech companies is harming us all, reducing our very selfhood to that which can be quantified, bought, and sold—and shaking the foundations of our democracy.
To push back against this “human fracking,” we need more than individual willpower or isolated efforts. We need a movement of collective resistance. Such a movement is beginning to bloom, and in this radical, first-of-its-kind guide, The Friends of Attention show us how to join the fight. We meet welders, nurses, poets, and surfers, all of whom are engaged in attentional practices. We learn to seek out sanctuaries—theaters and museums, houses of worship, dance parties—where together we can take refuge from the frackers. Attention Activism takes our apocalyptic present, turns it on its head, and reveals new vistas of human flourishing.
Drawing on a rich legacy of critical intellectuals and the creative wisdom of diverse traditions, Attensity! calls on us to come together to defeat the greedy dehumanizing forces of brute instrumentalization—and re-enchant the world.
217 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 20, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
February 12, 2026
DNF. You remember that episode of South Park where Randy moves to San Fransisco and can’t stop smelling his own farts? That’s the people who wrote this book.
Pretentious, not a single piece of research seems to be put into this book? Stats thrown at you with no source? Like I want to be on board but it just seems like a bunch of people got together and just decided that they knew a bunch about something they don’t know that much about?
Message is good but the messengers are faulty. Screams NYC supper club faux activism.
Pretentious, not a single piece of research seems to be put into this book? Stats thrown at you with no source? Like I want to be on board but it just seems like a bunch of people got together and just decided that they knew a bunch about something they don’t know that much about?
Message is good but the messengers are faulty. Screams NYC supper club faux activism.
January 9, 2026
Thank you NetGalley for this ARC.
I went into this book genuinely excited. With such a timely subject and the promise of exploring how technology is shaping — and reshaping — our attention, I expected insight, research, and meaningful reflection.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t what I found. Rather than an examination of attention in the modern world, this book presents a collective manifesto, with each chapter functioning as a short statement or declaration. While the concept itself is interesting, the execution didn’t work for me.
For a topic of this importance, the lack of depth was disappointing. There is very little scientific grounding or research to support the ideas presented, and the format left no room for nuance or deeper exploration. I found myself wanting the book to engage more critically with the subject, but it remained largely surface-level throughout.
While I appreciate the intention behind this project, the execution didn’t meet my expectations, and I was left wanting far more depth and evidence for such a complex topic.
I went into this book genuinely excited. With such a timely subject and the promise of exploring how technology is shaping — and reshaping — our attention, I expected insight, research, and meaningful reflection.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t what I found. Rather than an examination of attention in the modern world, this book presents a collective manifesto, with each chapter functioning as a short statement or declaration. While the concept itself is interesting, the execution didn’t work for me.
For a topic of this importance, the lack of depth was disappointing. There is very little scientific grounding or research to support the ideas presented, and the format left no room for nuance or deeper exploration. I found myself wanting the book to engage more critically with the subject, but it remained largely surface-level throughout.
While I appreciate the intention behind this project, the execution didn’t meet my expectations, and I was left wanting far more depth and evidence for such a complex topic.
January 29, 2026
The more I think about this book, the more disappointed I am. The tone was weird, almost infantilizing, and I’m just not sure who the target audience is. I’m fully on board with the whole idea but still found myself distinctly un-rallied by this.
February 2, 2026
I liked the idea a lot more than the tedious execution.
January 30, 2026
This is an explicit and self-conscious call to action to resist the fragmentation of society by the constant siren’s call of the attention economy that isolates and divides us from one another. What action? Mostly, to do things with other people in person in a way that defies what they call “attention fracking”—squeezing ever more moments of monetized screen-based attention from the public. Examples include going to band practice, playing D&D, and growing bonsai trees. I endorse all of this whole heartedly.
It is a real pity that the book is weighed down by the language of lefty activists/academics, much as with How to Do Nothing. To inspire the kind of change this manifesto seems to want, reaching the broadest possible audience is imperative, but they cannot resist drawing analogies that will only appeal to lefties, such as the central “fracking” metaphor, which only really works for you if you believe fossil fuel fracking to be bad. They also approach their subject elliptically, constantly promising that they’re going to explain things and forcing you to wait until much later in the book to find out what they’re talking about (including a long digression about not trusting scientists while insisting that that’s not what they’re saying) instead of just building an argument. Contrast this with The Sirens’ Call, which presents a much more linear, accessible, and compelling account than is rendered here. I think this book does not do much more than rally people already inclined to agree with the authors and who already share, or at least aren’t put off by, their lefty worldview. It’s therefore hard to imagine this book having the kind of Silent Spring–like impact the authors explicitly hope for (though I’ve never read Silent Spring, so for all I know it reads much like Attensity!).
That said, the goals of the authors, to rebuild a society that had been falling apart for decades before social media and AI appeared (as diagnosed in Bowling Alone), align well with my own, and I found reading this book a welcome occasion to reflect on the subject. I think I would recommend The Sirens’ Call and The Anxious Generation well before I would Attensity!, but they are, I think, getting at something important about how attention works. It’s not just our ability to focus on a task, particularly a screen-based one, and the crisis of attention is not just about shortening attention spans but about what we give our attention to and what forms our attention is allowed to take.
I think there is a more precise and more compelling version of this that could be written (and it may already be lingering out there in the vast literature I haven’t read) that disentangles the anti-capitalist aspect of their argument, makes more concrete recommendations, and provides a more actionable definition of attention in the first place, but the authors are engaged in important work, and if this book serves the role they hope it will, that would be no bad thing.
It is a real pity that the book is weighed down by the language of lefty activists/academics, much as with How to Do Nothing. To inspire the kind of change this manifesto seems to want, reaching the broadest possible audience is imperative, but they cannot resist drawing analogies that will only appeal to lefties, such as the central “fracking” metaphor, which only really works for you if you believe fossil fuel fracking to be bad. They also approach their subject elliptically, constantly promising that they’re going to explain things and forcing you to wait until much later in the book to find out what they’re talking about (including a long digression about not trusting scientists while insisting that that’s not what they’re saying) instead of just building an argument. Contrast this with The Sirens’ Call, which presents a much more linear, accessible, and compelling account than is rendered here. I think this book does not do much more than rally people already inclined to agree with the authors and who already share, or at least aren’t put off by, their lefty worldview. It’s therefore hard to imagine this book having the kind of Silent Spring–like impact the authors explicitly hope for (though I’ve never read Silent Spring, so for all I know it reads much like Attensity!).
That said, the goals of the authors, to rebuild a society that had been falling apart for decades before social media and AI appeared (as diagnosed in Bowling Alone), align well with my own, and I found reading this book a welcome occasion to reflect on the subject. I think I would recommend The Sirens’ Call and The Anxious Generation well before I would Attensity!, but they are, I think, getting at something important about how attention works. It’s not just our ability to focus on a task, particularly a screen-based one, and the crisis of attention is not just about shortening attention spans but about what we give our attention to and what forms our attention is allowed to take.
I think there is a more precise and more compelling version of this that could be written (and it may already be lingering out there in the vast literature I haven’t read) that disentangles the anti-capitalist aspect of their argument, makes more concrete recommendations, and provides a more actionable definition of attention in the first place, but the authors are engaged in important work, and if this book serves the role they hope it will, that would be no bad thing.
March 11, 2026
Liked the contents of Attensity (the soundbites on attention-fracking, the need for "attention sanctuaries," and the resistance against the commodification of our attention that has historically lined the pockets of the world's wealthiest corporations), but they lost me with the packaging. My woo-woo radar gets activated when a book is marketed as a "manifesto" written by a mysterious, amorphous group known as the "friends of attention," who gather in secret to discuss the "attention liberation movement." Attensity's authorship takes itself too seriously, which makes it difficult to engage with seriously as a reader. A shame because we should all probably heed the advice in this book. Sorry -- manifesto.
April 5, 2026
Extremely important topic
executed as a 'grab your pitchforks' rally cry.
is a really important concept, explained poorly, still a really important concept.
I think it is.
Others will do this better, but maybe this is simply the fun light that leads the way.
4 stars for the effort, and the importance of the topic.
executed as a 'grab your pitchforks' rally cry.
is a really important concept, explained poorly, still a really important concept.
I think it is.
Others will do this better, but maybe this is simply the fun light that leads the way.
4 stars for the effort, and the importance of the topic.
Read
October 9, 2025Had to read for work!
April 2, 2026
Review TL;DR: the core thesis is great and the message is one we should all get behind. So why is it that the authors felt the need to alienate a majority of their potential audience?
The message really is great, and there are some really interesting insights and comparisons brought up in this book. I especially like the idea of “distraction” being true attention (loosely) and the self-awareness that social-movements can be negatively disruptive to democracy, removing agency in some cases, but the necessity for a movement in breaking stale molds!
But mostly this book made me frustrated. The Authors felt the need to frequently reference controversial, or at least not yet entirely accepted, political stances as though they are tied directly to the nature of Attention Activism. The problems we face when it comes to monetizing attention stretch across all boundaries, and affect everyone universally!
In some cases, topics such as climate change are brought up as a point of reference, and this is fine. But frequently the authors make tactical language decisions to convey certain extraneous opinions as true by default. The problem with this is that it (perhaps—ironically—*unintentionally*?) ties these irrelevant opinions to the Attention Activism movement.
This is obviously damaging to the movement! The point should not be “only the politcal left” or “only the politcal right” will agree with this fight. It needs to universal. What’s more is that the more opinions thrown into the now omnibus movement further decreases the odds the reader has the exact matching opinion set. All of this is tangential to the issue at hand in the book. If you make your readers feel like they are in enemy territory, or forcing them to agree with unrelated opinions they don’t share in order to adopt the CORE belief of this book, your limit the spread of your ideology and your movement.
I agree with the message, and would consider myself an “Attention Activist”, but I find it hard to see myself recommending this book to anyone because of the *irrelevant* included opinions a they might assume I’ve adopted.
The message really is great, and there are some really interesting insights and comparisons brought up in this book. I especially like the idea of “distraction” being true attention (loosely) and the self-awareness that social-movements can be negatively disruptive to democracy, removing agency in some cases, but the necessity for a movement in breaking stale molds!
But mostly this book made me frustrated. The Authors felt the need to frequently reference controversial, or at least not yet entirely accepted, political stances as though they are tied directly to the nature of Attention Activism. The problems we face when it comes to monetizing attention stretch across all boundaries, and affect everyone universally!
In some cases, topics such as climate change are brought up as a point of reference, and this is fine. But frequently the authors make tactical language decisions to convey certain extraneous opinions as true by default. The problem with this is that it (perhaps—ironically—*unintentionally*?) ties these irrelevant opinions to the Attention Activism movement.
This is obviously damaging to the movement! The point should not be “only the politcal left” or “only the politcal right” will agree with this fight. It needs to universal. What’s more is that the more opinions thrown into the now omnibus movement further decreases the odds the reader has the exact matching opinion set. All of this is tangential to the issue at hand in the book. If you make your readers feel like they are in enemy territory, or forcing them to agree with unrelated opinions they don’t share in order to adopt the CORE belief of this book, your limit the spread of your ideology and your movement.
I agree with the message, and would consider myself an “Attention Activist”, but I find it hard to see myself recommending this book to anyone because of the *irrelevant* included opinions a they might assume I’ve adopted.
March 4, 2026
Oh, but this is difficult; if it were possible to award five stars for intent and trumpeting a just cause I would not hesitate, however in reality intent versus execution I am being generous in awarding two stars, regrettably.
For what seems like decades we have been watching (and allowing) the erosion of our attention, together with loss of our privacy, the deterioration of the mental health of us and our children, dumbing of our collective intelligence, etc., etc.) to the point now where one we must acknowledge to a large degree that combating on a collective basis is futile. Our “Bread and circuses” (Juvenal warned Romans of collective apathy in his time) have for us come home to roost. Our “circuses” the willing erosion of our privacy and individuality through technological comfort and frivolous amusement has taken an irreversible toll. The constant Brain-Fracking will only get worse and a well-intentioned Manifesto to combat same will make little difference unfortunately.
A well-intentioned narrative that speaks of fighting back with community advocacy, finger painting exercises in church basements, chess clubs, art installations etc., is beyond naïveté almost bordering on pollyannish dreaming. Hello Manifesto Authors!! the barbarians are not at the gates anymore they are well entrenched inside the walls; in fact, they are in charge; we too by our poor choices are complicit and are also the barbarians. This manifesto principled (well-intentioned) is twenty years too late. All we can do is try to save what little remains of our individual sanity by whatever means available to us. The chapter on Political action is laughable: the Tech-Bros are firmly in charge and effective political counter action in our lifetime is highly doubtful!
The least that is said about the formatting of this book the better. Red typeface! each chapter introduction four or five wasted pages in obnoxious red glare!
For what seems like decades we have been watching (and allowing) the erosion of our attention, together with loss of our privacy, the deterioration of the mental health of us and our children, dumbing of our collective intelligence, etc., etc.) to the point now where one we must acknowledge to a large degree that combating on a collective basis is futile. Our “Bread and circuses” (Juvenal warned Romans of collective apathy in his time) have for us come home to roost. Our “circuses” the willing erosion of our privacy and individuality through technological comfort and frivolous amusement has taken an irreversible toll. The constant Brain-Fracking will only get worse and a well-intentioned Manifesto to combat same will make little difference unfortunately.
A well-intentioned narrative that speaks of fighting back with community advocacy, finger painting exercises in church basements, chess clubs, art installations etc., is beyond naïveté almost bordering on pollyannish dreaming. Hello Manifesto Authors!! the barbarians are not at the gates anymore they are well entrenched inside the walls; in fact, they are in charge; we too by our poor choices are complicit and are also the barbarians. This manifesto principled (well-intentioned) is twenty years too late. All we can do is try to save what little remains of our individual sanity by whatever means available to us. The chapter on Political action is laughable: the Tech-Bros are firmly in charge and effective political counter action in our lifetime is highly doubtful!
The least that is said about the formatting of this book the better. Red typeface! each chapter introduction four or five wasted pages in obnoxious red glare!
February 8, 2026
so excited to continue studying attention in my day to day. i liked a lot of the ideas and tone of this, but there was hella italics. making me so excited about being offa my phone and onto myself. i like the emphasis on going forward vs. going back to the way things were. because, as much as i love nostalgia, that's not a solution really. and there does need to be revolution, even reconsidering our relationship to media as a whole. and as a humanity. rare books can make me think of humanity as a whole like this one did. read this at work which i also found interesting and have just been talking about it with everyone i know.
April 1, 2026
A bit overly self-aggrandizing. It felt very “group of hippies descend on one hippie’s rural property and decide SOMETHING MUST BE DONE about THE! ATTENTION! ISSUE! But they also decide data or measurable evidence or even specific desired outcomes from readers/society are not worth the bother lol. However they spent a lot of time reading books related to this topic so I’ll give them that.
But the points made were generally good. Gave me some new ideas and ways of thinking about the issue. All told still worth the read for me and I think it positively influenced me and how I think about attention fracking. It’s a scary thing fr you guys. Just like literally everything else in our burning hellscape of a society. We can all only pick so many things to care about.
But the points made were generally good. Gave me some new ideas and ways of thinking about the issue. All told still worth the read for me and I think it positively influenced me and how I think about attention fracking. It’s a scary thing fr you guys. Just like literally everything else in our burning hellscape of a society. We can all only pick so many things to care about.
Did Not Finish
March 23, 2026DNF. I liked the structure in theory; the manifesto/mission statement is broken up sentence by sentence, which creates "chapters" going in depth on each piece of the statement. But it ends up repeating the same point. The tone is quite emotional when I would've preferred factual. They make some bold claims and then say "look up the research yourself" and even go as far as to discount research/science altogether. Feels ironic that I couldn't pay attention to a book on attention. It's an important cause but these "Friends of Attention" are not going to garner genuine activism like this.
February 7, 2026
Corny, but if you look past that, the commentary is on point.
March 8, 2026
HARD. LONG. Read.
I read all "238" pages (not really that many, they just liked the number I guess) so:
TLDR; This was like eating poop from a butt. The Friends of Attention is made of of liberal art majors (as an anth major myself) discussing how we should replicate the 60's-70's hippie movement of ecology (which is much more than that, but to the writers-thats all.) ATTENSITY is nothing but DOING STUFF. This book was doing way too much every other word was italicized or all caps.
There is multiple ideological contradictions with the insistence against forcing the mode of doom down your throat at every moment, and then a page later IN ALL CAPS DISCUSSING HOW WE ARE DOOMED IF WE DO NOT FIX OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT PHONE.
Also, there is some troubling potential ableism that irked me considering it’s ideas about SANCTUARIES being FOR ALL PEOPLE to heal with one ANOTHER. The book references disabilities as an impact of Cognitive Capitalism (the book titled this HUMAN FRACKING) which I think could easily still be included if there was some discussion of medical vs social lenses of disability, how human fracking has influenced our relationship with the world so much students don’t care for tests or get bored in conversations (not ADHD)- I think this would actually make the book less pompous.
The call to action for "deaths of despair" and isolation (as a result of ever-expansive and violently extractive forms of capitalism) is to #NotGiveUp and "go vote" (engage in civic institutions already co-opted by capitalism) - "We write, we rabble, we DO STUFF" [real excerpt btw] - They then call this revolutionary, which I thought was an insult to people who sweat and die in real material revolutions.
ATTENSITY! as "The Friend's" response seems vague and pathetic. "We don't just resist the bad stuff" (okay, I think to myself, we're finally getting somewhere) "We are continually working ... A world remade through attentional emancipation. Our motto for this big campaign, ATTENSITY". Oh. my. god. I read this entire book just to understand that you DO STUFF to "emancipate attention". Save your time, ATTENSITY! is just a rally point for others to do their work, those STUFFY CONVERSATIONS and MOBILIZATIONS is the work of other people finding how to best put down the phone and call representatives, who get paid from frackers, later.
I read all "238" pages (not really that many, they just liked the number I guess) so:
TLDR; This was like eating poop from a butt. The Friends of Attention is made of of liberal art majors (as an anth major myself) discussing how we should replicate the 60's-70's hippie movement of ecology (which is much more than that, but to the writers-thats all.) ATTENSITY is nothing but DOING STUFF. This book was doing way too much every other word was italicized or all caps.
There is multiple ideological contradictions with the insistence against forcing the mode of doom down your throat at every moment, and then a page later IN ALL CAPS DISCUSSING HOW WE ARE DOOMED IF WE DO NOT FIX OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT PHONE.
Also, there is some troubling potential ableism that irked me considering it’s ideas about SANCTUARIES being FOR ALL PEOPLE to heal with one ANOTHER. The book references disabilities as an impact of Cognitive Capitalism (the book titled this HUMAN FRACKING) which I think could easily still be included if there was some discussion of medical vs social lenses of disability, how human fracking has influenced our relationship with the world so much students don’t care for tests or get bored in conversations (not ADHD)- I think this would actually make the book less pompous.
The call to action for "deaths of despair" and isolation (as a result of ever-expansive and violently extractive forms of capitalism) is to #NotGiveUp and "go vote" (engage in civic institutions already co-opted by capitalism) - "We write, we rabble, we DO STUFF" [real excerpt btw] - They then call this revolutionary, which I thought was an insult to people who sweat and die in real material revolutions.
ATTENSITY! as "The Friend's" response seems vague and pathetic. "We don't just resist the bad stuff" (okay, I think to myself, we're finally getting somewhere) "We are continually working ... A world remade through attentional emancipation. Our motto for this big campaign, ATTENSITY". Oh. my. god. I read this entire book just to understand that you DO STUFF to "emancipate attention". Save your time, ATTENSITY! is just a rally point for others to do their work, those STUFFY CONVERSATIONS and MOBILIZATIONS is the work of other people finding how to best put down the phone and call representatives, who get paid from frackers, later.
March 12, 2026
things did not have to take this shape. it bears saying up front—things could have been different. but the fact of the matter is this: over the last thirty years, the explosive growth of the internet and the global proliferation of data devices have converged with a series of shortsighted political decisions; along the way, the shrewd initiative of a generation of tech entrepreneurs had produced, in effect, an ostensibly "free" digital universe—whose hidden operating cost is the depletion and pollution of the minds and senses of its users.
sound message sometimes eclipsed by its medium
February 22, 2026
It engages with a topic I really care about, and it feels very timely. I appreciated the urgency and activist energy behind it. But for me, it felt a bit surface-level. The ideas are compelling, yet not explored in enough depth, which made it harder for me to stay engaged. It is a strong call to action, but I wish it had been more grounded and nuanced.
February 4, 2026
Jenny Odell has already written the definitive book about the Attention Economy and how to resist it, and most other books are just reheating her nachos, albeit without the same sharp political critique and action plan. Of the crop of post-Odell books, this is by far the worst.
I was so hopeful about ATTENSITY! because dissatisfaction with the attention economy is reaching a point of cultural breakthrough in America, from frustration with algorithms to a rancid discursive landscape online to record mental health crises among younger Americans. I think it's cool that this organization has managed to pull together the funding to host an actual in-person school and draw a full crowd out to Judson Memorial Church in NYC. I'm someone who would have loved to get involved based on premise, but was turned away by reality.
The vibes of the organization, and book, are strange, white, and cult-ish. Despite having been written by a collective, the tone of ATTENSITY! is the same as its fast-talking white male leadership: rousing, yet somehow condescending and alienating. The book identifies the villains persuasively, and I like the idea of calling out tech companies as "frackers" of human attention. But the book flounders in its politics. Despite insisting that our spoiled attentions are not our individual fault, but the result of extractive technologies, their plan of action is surprisingly individualistic. Rather than calling for us to direct our attention towards regulation (which is often the call-to-action of the environmental movement from which they draw inspiration), the authors insist that ... anything we do, besides being on our phone, is Automatic Resistance. They cite artists, Bible verse reciters, knitters, and gardeners as Attention Activists. I don't disagree that the movement should be broad and inclusive, but do the authors not realize that a lot of those same artists also have high screen times, must compete in the algorithmic economy to sell their art, are having our art co-opted by AI? There's a high-mindedness in ATTENSITY! that brushes away these messy details, occasionally condescending people who are addicted to their phones or worried about their attention spans; you could leave the book, as I did, vaguely activated against tech companies but with zero clear plan of action.
The tone of the book is written to pre-empt a lot of criticism. It raises rhetorical questions and quickly shuts them down with definitive answers. It's strangely slick-talking in its cadence, almost shoving you through the sticky parts before you can ask too many questions, like when a realtor is showing you a faulty house. Probably because of its white male leadership (the only Asian woman on the editorial team is married to the main editor, something he announced onstage at Judson in a bizarrely undercutting way, IMO) the book doesn't brushes past questions of power and difference that impact how attention activists could show up to the movement. I almost think the "collective authorship" is part of that, so we can't write it off as an exclusive project.
I hope the next iteration of resistance to the attention economy is more up to the challenge.
I was so hopeful about ATTENSITY! because dissatisfaction with the attention economy is reaching a point of cultural breakthrough in America, from frustration with algorithms to a rancid discursive landscape online to record mental health crises among younger Americans. I think it's cool that this organization has managed to pull together the funding to host an actual in-person school and draw a full crowd out to Judson Memorial Church in NYC. I'm someone who would have loved to get involved based on premise, but was turned away by reality.
The vibes of the organization, and book, are strange, white, and cult-ish. Despite having been written by a collective, the tone of ATTENSITY! is the same as its fast-talking white male leadership: rousing, yet somehow condescending and alienating. The book identifies the villains persuasively, and I like the idea of calling out tech companies as "frackers" of human attention. But the book flounders in its politics. Despite insisting that our spoiled attentions are not our individual fault, but the result of extractive technologies, their plan of action is surprisingly individualistic. Rather than calling for us to direct our attention towards regulation (which is often the call-to-action of the environmental movement from which they draw inspiration), the authors insist that ... anything we do, besides being on our phone, is Automatic Resistance. They cite artists, Bible verse reciters, knitters, and gardeners as Attention Activists. I don't disagree that the movement should be broad and inclusive, but do the authors not realize that a lot of those same artists also have high screen times, must compete in the algorithmic economy to sell their art, are having our art co-opted by AI? There's a high-mindedness in ATTENSITY! that brushes away these messy details, occasionally condescending people who are addicted to their phones or worried about their attention spans; you could leave the book, as I did, vaguely activated against tech companies but with zero clear plan of action.
The tone of the book is written to pre-empt a lot of criticism. It raises rhetorical questions and quickly shuts them down with definitive answers. It's strangely slick-talking in its cadence, almost shoving you through the sticky parts before you can ask too many questions, like when a realtor is showing you a faulty house. Probably because of its white male leadership (the only Asian woman on the editorial team is married to the main editor, something he announced onstage at Judson in a bizarrely undercutting way, IMO) the book doesn't brushes past questions of power and difference that impact how attention activists could show up to the movement. I almost think the "collective authorship" is part of that, so we can't write it off as an exclusive project.
I hope the next iteration of resistance to the attention economy is more up to the challenge.
March 8, 2026
Not really a book. But what is it? A pamphlet, maybe? Something like Thomas Paine's Common Sense perhaps,which (in my kindle edition runs less than 70 pages).
This is 21 essays of a page or three each. They are illustrating the points of the manifesto, which is itself repeated for each essay/chapter. On a different day, I'd have given it 2 stars. On still a different one, 4.
Some of these essays are quite interesting, well written, and informative: I learned, for example, about TheOrder of the Third Bird, and that there's actually a School of Radical Attention in Brooklyn. I learned that the word "attensity" wasn't new but originated at the beginning of the 20th century by a group of early “introspective” psychologists, who believed that they could, working together to study the experience of their minds-in-action, learn to “see” the actual dynamics of human cognition, and that the same group coined the word "empathy." Other essays are cliché-ridden and full of slogans. The metaphor "Human Fracking," for example, was at best worth a line or two but is repeated 54 times in this book. Compare that to the different forms of "advertise" which gets a count of 12, and "capitalism" which only gets 5.
I find advertising the biggest enemy of our attention. I just read that "Audio ads could soon be a part of your daily commute on the NYC subway system." Attention Activists need to get on this!
The "book" also speaks out against the way the word "attention" is used to mean a task-directed tool. It's the resource that needs to be managed (as in "Time Management") to achieve. I'd addressed this earlier in my review of Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World which may be found here. A similar view of attention is found in the book Outliers: The Story of Success.
While I have your 'attention,' may I suggest you check out the Wikipedia page on the history of ADD. . It mentions, for instance, that amongst those who have possibly had ADHD were Thomas Edison, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Byron, Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Neither 'ADD' nor 'ADHD' are mentioned in the book under review. that's one of its deficits, in my opinion
I was drawn to this book and kept from giving up on it by an interview with Larry Berger mentioning it and because Jaron Lanier, whom I generally find interesting, says “If you are human, you must read this book.”
All I'll say is that it's at least worth your attention.
This is 21 essays of a page or three each. They are illustrating the points of the manifesto, which is itself repeated for each essay/chapter. On a different day, I'd have given it 2 stars. On still a different one, 4.
Some of these essays are quite interesting, well written, and informative: I learned, for example, about TheOrder of the Third Bird, and that there's actually a School of Radical Attention in Brooklyn. I learned that the word "attensity" wasn't new but originated at the beginning of the 20th century by a group of early “introspective” psychologists, who believed that they could, working together to study the experience of their minds-in-action, learn to “see” the actual dynamics of human cognition, and that the same group coined the word "empathy." Other essays are cliché-ridden and full of slogans. The metaphor "Human Fracking," for example, was at best worth a line or two but is repeated 54 times in this book. Compare that to the different forms of "advertise" which gets a count of 12, and "capitalism" which only gets 5.
I find advertising the biggest enemy of our attention. I just read that "Audio ads could soon be a part of your daily commute on the NYC subway system." Attention Activists need to get on this!
The "book" also speaks out against the way the word "attention" is used to mean a task-directed tool. It's the resource that needs to be managed (as in "Time Management") to achieve. I'd addressed this earlier in my review of Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World which may be found here. A similar view of attention is found in the book Outliers: The Story of Success.
While I have your 'attention,' may I suggest you check out the Wikipedia page on the history of ADD. . It mentions, for instance, that amongst those who have possibly had ADHD were Thomas Edison, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Byron, Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Neither 'ADD' nor 'ADHD' are mentioned in the book under review. that's one of its deficits, in my opinion
I was drawn to this book and kept from giving up on it by an interview with Larry Berger mentioning it and because Jaron Lanier, whom I generally find interesting, says “If you are human, you must read this book.”
All I'll say is that it's at least worth your attention.
March 12, 2026
Attensity is a manifesto that the authors flesh out chapter by chapter. It’s a quick read, and an interesting one. The authors (a collective of attention activists) argue a couple things to lay the groundwork. First, that we are being intentionally “fracked”- ie, that our attention is being stolen and monetized. They allege (and I agree) that there are wealthy, powerful interests who are aware of what they are doing and will continue to do it and maximize it as much as they can; that those parties are investing money and research into HOW to maximize the capture of our attention for the purpose of monetization; and that, because of the sophisticated, well-resourced parties behind this, we need to understand that this is much bigger than a simple case of “each-one-of-us-needs-to-curb-our-phone-addition” type of scenario. And second, they introduce he idea that the very definition of attention that has been offered to us and widely accepted institutionally and societally is a definition that 1) is not complete at all and in fact is so woefully incomplete and to be just more or less inaccurate and 2)this incorrect definition has been chosen and tooled by the very people who have an interest in fracking us BECAUSE WHEN WE ACCEPT THIS DEFINITION WE ARE MUCH EASIER TO FRACK. I really loved that deep dive into what exactly attention is and I think the book is valuable for that alone.
The rest of the book is the authors spelling out their ideas in ore depth and offering their glimpses of solutions. And this is sadly where the book fell a little flat for me.
To me it felt that the authors were dancing around, but could never quite commit to, a radical rejection of the capitalist, racist, patriarchal, extravist foundations of the systems that have brought us here, to this moment, when our survival is in jeopardy. I personally do not believe we can fix this from inside this, but Attensity seemed to me to suggest exactly that at the end of the day. That if we just do enough stuff together and use enough common sense about what we know deep down about ourselves and our world, then things will sort themselves out. I no longer believe that, although I did for most of my life.
I did love their artistic framing of the issue. From that I took away that art and that type of artistic thinking will be critical to “the revolution,” and that is an easy sell for me. Art is really just another name for thinking freely without being bounded by boxes and norms. And that is the only thing that will save us in the end.
One very lovely point they made was that the seeds of how to resist this oppressive fracking already probably lie within the means of oppressions. They made the argument by showing how the Industrial Revolution, another seismic shift that ushered in new modalities of oppression, held within the forms of oppression the very source of power to resist the oppression. That seems plausible to me that the same would apply to this era of human fracking, and I look forward to learning and seeing manifested the roots of resistance.
The rest of the book is the authors spelling out their ideas in ore depth and offering their glimpses of solutions. And this is sadly where the book fell a little flat for me.
To me it felt that the authors were dancing around, but could never quite commit to, a radical rejection of the capitalist, racist, patriarchal, extravist foundations of the systems that have brought us here, to this moment, when our survival is in jeopardy. I personally do not believe we can fix this from inside this, but Attensity seemed to me to suggest exactly that at the end of the day. That if we just do enough stuff together and use enough common sense about what we know deep down about ourselves and our world, then things will sort themselves out. I no longer believe that, although I did for most of my life.
I did love their artistic framing of the issue. From that I took away that art and that type of artistic thinking will be critical to “the revolution,” and that is an easy sell for me. Art is really just another name for thinking freely without being bounded by boxes and norms. And that is the only thing that will save us in the end.
One very lovely point they made was that the seeds of how to resist this oppressive fracking already probably lie within the means of oppressions. They made the argument by showing how the Industrial Revolution, another seismic shift that ushered in new modalities of oppression, held within the forms of oppression the very source of power to resist the oppression. That seems plausible to me that the same would apply to this era of human fracking, and I look forward to learning and seeing manifested the roots of resistance.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
I thought ‘Attensity!’ was going to be about what attention is, how modern technologies and the digital age affect it, and actionable ways in which we can reclaim it, both as individuals and as a society. Instead, ‘Attensity!’ reads like the crackpot and often paranoid ravings of someone who is spending way too much time alone in the basement, possibly with a tinfoil hat on their head, desperate to recruit others to their nascent cult—sorry, way of thinking. The random words and phrases in all-caps or italics, sometimes with added bold too, don’t help, and the overall sense I was left with when reading this book was: “You okay, hun?”
Given the importance of the topic and the impact it has on us at every level as human beings, from our basic mental health to the structures of our society, I understand why the writing is so impassioned. However, ‘impassioned’ tips over into ‘crackpot’ when no references are given to back up any of the authors’ claims; even the need for references and research is dismissed with excuses such as “proving causality is hard” and “statistics are a messy business”; even the possibility of research is dismissed by insisting that what we currently define as ‘attention’ isn’t actually attention, and that true attention cannot be defined, and thus cannot be researched and the authors’ claims neither proven nor disproven (convenient…); and we readers are called upon instead to rely on ‘common sense’, though common sense isn’t scientific nor necessarily accurate and would have most people believing the glass is either half empty or half full when it is in fact entirely full, as it is not a vacuum—something that science shows us.
‘Impassioned’ also tips over into ‘crackpot’ when the phrase ‘human fracking’ is repeated every few words.
All that aside, the book is also substantially more filler than content, with many blank pages and with the same central statement being repeated again and again, with a different phrase highlighted each time (before expanding on that phrase with another short and unsubstantiated rant…).
Given how many authors supposedly worked on this book, it’s a shame there wasn’t an editor amongst them. Or someone who realised the importance of coming across as sane. Having someone who could define the concept they’re talking about wouldn’t have hurt, either.
Anyway…
I think what the authors are trying to get at is that the world we currently live in is not optimised to enable us to feel ‘flow’. So instead of reading this book, I would recommend stepping away from your phone, checking out ‘Flow’ by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, then doing whatever it is that enables you to feel flow, and perhaps considering ways in which we as a society might change to enable more people to experience flow. (But please don’t write a fracking MANIFESTO on it.)
Many thanks to NetGalley, The Friends of Attention, and Particular Books for the ARC.
Given the importance of the topic and the impact it has on us at every level as human beings, from our basic mental health to the structures of our society, I understand why the writing is so impassioned. However, ‘impassioned’ tips over into ‘crackpot’ when no references are given to back up any of the authors’ claims; even the need for references and research is dismissed with excuses such as “proving causality is hard” and “statistics are a messy business”; even the possibility of research is dismissed by insisting that what we currently define as ‘attention’ isn’t actually attention, and that true attention cannot be defined, and thus cannot be researched and the authors’ claims neither proven nor disproven (convenient…); and we readers are called upon instead to rely on ‘common sense’, though common sense isn’t scientific nor necessarily accurate and would have most people believing the glass is either half empty or half full when it is in fact entirely full, as it is not a vacuum—something that science shows us.
‘Impassioned’ also tips over into ‘crackpot’ when the phrase ‘human fracking’ is repeated every few words.
All that aside, the book is also substantially more filler than content, with many blank pages and with the same central statement being repeated again and again, with a different phrase highlighted each time (before expanding on that phrase with another short and unsubstantiated rant…).
Given how many authors supposedly worked on this book, it’s a shame there wasn’t an editor amongst them. Or someone who realised the importance of coming across as sane. Having someone who could define the concept they’re talking about wouldn’t have hurt, either.
Anyway…
I think what the authors are trying to get at is that the world we currently live in is not optimised to enable us to feel ‘flow’. So instead of reading this book, I would recommend stepping away from your phone, checking out ‘Flow’ by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, then doing whatever it is that enables you to feel flow, and perhaps considering ways in which we as a society might change to enable more people to experience flow. (But please don’t write a fracking MANIFESTO on it.)
Many thanks to NetGalley, The Friends of Attention, and Particular Books for the ARC.
February 12, 2026
The only reason I did not rate this book 2 stars is because I very much agree with the ideas it is TRYING to convey. However, I think the immature writing style and the strange way they seem to approach this issue kind of misses the mark and I don't think it will be drawing anyone to the cause that does not already agree.
Instead of acknowledging the incredibly addictive and attention capturing nature of our media landscape the whole book seems to revolve around the idea that we have just been duped into thinking our phones are the only thing we can pay attention to. They say that what drives the attention economy is a "lie about what attention is, and how it works, and what it is for". While I understand what they are going for here, this statement seems demonstrably false. The attention economy is driven by a DEEP understanding of exactly what human attention is and an extremely effective exploitation of EXACTLY the way that it works. This is how the "algorithms" are able to so effectively capture and hold our attention. It is not that they have lied to us and made us believe that we should be doing this, they are exploiting the literal brain chemistry of our human attention.
While I don't think the authors meant for it to come across this way, there is this vague notion throughout the book that the solution to this problem is to just pay attention to other things. The things that they suggest we use our attention for often revolve around building community and interpersonal interactions which is great and also something I strongly agree with! However, this just seems like a solution to a tangential issue. Hanging out with friends or 'attending' deeply towards a hobby doesn't help someone not get sucked into TikTok as soon as they get home.
Overall, I think I was just disappointed by how they handled this topic because I do feel passionately about it. Maybe it is the fact that I have thought a lot about it and the ideas in the book just didn't align with my own. I think that resisting the attention economy is absolutely good but I do not think that this book describes it, the mechanisms behind it, or the solutions for it in a very good way. I do think that it conveys a great deal of enthusiasm for the movement though, and I hope that that is what people take away when reading this book.
Instead of acknowledging the incredibly addictive and attention capturing nature of our media landscape the whole book seems to revolve around the idea that we have just been duped into thinking our phones are the only thing we can pay attention to. They say that what drives the attention economy is a "lie about what attention is, and how it works, and what it is for". While I understand what they are going for here, this statement seems demonstrably false. The attention economy is driven by a DEEP understanding of exactly what human attention is and an extremely effective exploitation of EXACTLY the way that it works. This is how the "algorithms" are able to so effectively capture and hold our attention. It is not that they have lied to us and made us believe that we should be doing this, they are exploiting the literal brain chemistry of our human attention.
While I don't think the authors meant for it to come across this way, there is this vague notion throughout the book that the solution to this problem is to just pay attention to other things. The things that they suggest we use our attention for often revolve around building community and interpersonal interactions which is great and also something I strongly agree with! However, this just seems like a solution to a tangential issue. Hanging out with friends or 'attending' deeply towards a hobby doesn't help someone not get sucked into TikTok as soon as they get home.
Overall, I think I was just disappointed by how they handled this topic because I do feel passionately about it. Maybe it is the fact that I have thought a lot about it and the ideas in the book just didn't align with my own. I think that resisting the attention economy is absolutely good but I do not think that this book describes it, the mechanisms behind it, or the solutions for it in a very good way. I do think that it conveys a great deal of enthusiasm for the movement though, and I hope that that is what people take away when reading this book.
March 11, 2026
I wholeheartedly recommend this book. The issue of our attention deserves more of our attention, and the kind of deep philosophical understanding of the issue that this book engages with is vital to the foundation of a newly controversial but fundamental human concern.
I feel that Goodreads reviews are too often caught up in immaterial stylistic concerns, but the topic of this book and the authors' engagement with it is so great that one cannot really get into it here. This book's style is also very unconventional. Therefore, I will say that, when looking at issues of style, there are some drawbacks. I believe another reviewer described the book as feeling like a series of long Tumblr posts. Unfortunately, that's not inaccurate. Fortunately, I think it fits with the overall message of the book and its authors.
The subject of attention is addressed here in philosophical terms as deep as what it means to relate to the world around us and to understand our own state of existence. Discussing a topic like this will naturally take a different form than what you'll get from reading social science or politics writers like Cal Newport or Chris Hayes since those authors are approaching the subject of attention in a different way. I haven't read a tremendous amount about this field myself, but I would imagine that other writers aren't trying to do what the Friends of Attention here are doing, which is often to make us notice the unnoticed and describe the undescribed. When you try to do something like that, I feel like you'll inevitably either write something impenetrable or a bit kooky. For a "Manifesto," I can take kooky.
In fairness, I do think that the style of the book does detract a bit from its political objective. I agree with other reviewers that some of its examples and analogies are very much the stuff of lefty elite alternative academic culture, and that can be hard to take seriously. Additionally, while I'm sure that the authors stand on firm ground for the arguments they make, there is a serious lack of cited evidence throughout the book. If the objective is to bring attention to an issue and start a movement, a bit more seriousness and some endnotes stuffed into the back would certainly do no harm.
I feel that Goodreads reviews are too often caught up in immaterial stylistic concerns, but the topic of this book and the authors' engagement with it is so great that one cannot really get into it here. This book's style is also very unconventional. Therefore, I will say that, when looking at issues of style, there are some drawbacks. I believe another reviewer described the book as feeling like a series of long Tumblr posts. Unfortunately, that's not inaccurate. Fortunately, I think it fits with the overall message of the book and its authors.
The subject of attention is addressed here in philosophical terms as deep as what it means to relate to the world around us and to understand our own state of existence. Discussing a topic like this will naturally take a different form than what you'll get from reading social science or politics writers like Cal Newport or Chris Hayes since those authors are approaching the subject of attention in a different way. I haven't read a tremendous amount about this field myself, but I would imagine that other writers aren't trying to do what the Friends of Attention here are doing, which is often to make us notice the unnoticed and describe the undescribed. When you try to do something like that, I feel like you'll inevitably either write something impenetrable or a bit kooky. For a "Manifesto," I can take kooky.
In fairness, I do think that the style of the book does detract a bit from its political objective. I agree with other reviewers that some of its examples and analogies are very much the stuff of lefty elite alternative academic culture, and that can be hard to take seriously. Additionally, while I'm sure that the authors stand on firm ground for the arguments they make, there is a serious lack of cited evidence throughout the book. If the objective is to bring attention to an issue and start a movement, a bit more seriousness and some endnotes stuffed into the back would certainly do no harm.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
This book is a manifesto. It refuses to stay at the level of 10-ways-to-stop-scrolling-on-your-phone kind of book. Because the problem we’re facing isn’t going to be solved at the level of individual actions. The problem isn’t personal. It is structural and systemic.
“When your hand reaches, subconsciously, reflexively, for your phone (first thing in the morning, in the middle of a conversation, in the middle of a thought), or when you get stuck in an infinite scroll for an hour when you meant to look for a minute, that is not because you lack the personal willpower to escape. Rather, it is because trillions of dollars of military-grade research and technology, and thousands of the most highly trained and paid engineers in the world, are aligned behind overpowering your intention.”
Individual humans are no match for this infrastructure.
The appropriate feeling is not personal shame, but political anger.
This book is a call to arms, a revolution, a collective movement called Attention Activism.
Chances are, you’re already part of the revolution. You’re a reader. Reading requires a different kind of attention than the one engineered by modern algorithms. By choosing to read, you’re already participating in a collective resistance against the “psychic extraction” that plunders our eyeballs for profit.
But we’re not the only ones. Attention activists (attentionauts or attentionistas) are already around us: amateurs, artists, teachers, home cooks, builders, crafters, caretakers. They are people giving their attention (to each other, to themselves, to their surroundings) in joyful and life-affirming ways.
By the last page, my main feeling wasn’t despair about the attention economy. It was: “Absolutely not. You don’t get to have my mind.” It made me want to treat every act of my deliberate attention as a small act of defiance: a refusal to be fully algorithmisable, fully monetisable.
(Thank you to Particular Books and NetGalley for the ARC.)
“When your hand reaches, subconsciously, reflexively, for your phone (first thing in the morning, in the middle of a conversation, in the middle of a thought), or when you get stuck in an infinite scroll for an hour when you meant to look for a minute, that is not because you lack the personal willpower to escape. Rather, it is because trillions of dollars of military-grade research and technology, and thousands of the most highly trained and paid engineers in the world, are aligned behind overpowering your intention.”
Individual humans are no match for this infrastructure.
The appropriate feeling is not personal shame, but political anger.
This book is a call to arms, a revolution, a collective movement called Attention Activism.
Chances are, you’re already part of the revolution. You’re a reader. Reading requires a different kind of attention than the one engineered by modern algorithms. By choosing to read, you’re already participating in a collective resistance against the “psychic extraction” that plunders our eyeballs for profit.
But we’re not the only ones. Attention activists (attentionauts or attentionistas) are already around us: amateurs, artists, teachers, home cooks, builders, crafters, caretakers. They are people giving their attention (to each other, to themselves, to their surroundings) in joyful and life-affirming ways.
By the last page, my main feeling wasn’t despair about the attention economy. It was: “Absolutely not. You don’t get to have my mind.” It made me want to treat every act of my deliberate attention as a small act of defiance: a refusal to be fully algorithmisable, fully monetisable.
(Thank you to Particular Books and NetGalley for the ARC.)
January 25, 2026
I have quite a few friends that are part of the School of Radical Attention, but I have to be honest that until I read this book, I really didn't have a great grasp of what they actually did. I knew it had something to do with attention (duh), and it was about fighting screen addiction, but I guess I didn't really get how huge an issue it was. It certainly is for me though. I recently had to get off of Instagram to preserve my mental health, but this book really helped me see how widespread the problem is.
The book is super easy to read and chock full of fascinating information with very digestible chapters. It's also a much-needed call to arms. We need to stop believing the lie that individual decisions are going to solve this crisis. Very similar to how we used to think that turning off lights and the faucet when we brushed our teeth was going to reverse climate change, there's a belief if we just "unplug" every once in a while, then everything is going to be peachy keen. This sickness goes way beyond personal care. It's a part of a system that desperately needs to be dismantled.
After I finished the book, I did not feel overwhelmed or hopeless. I truly enjoyed reading this book. I especially enjoyed the "roll call" chapter where I got to learn about the different categories of folx who part of this movement can be (I'm an ARTIST!!!!) and the average people who are currently fighting. At the beginning of the book, the writers draw comparisons between this tome and Rachel Carson's seminal, Silent Spring. I thought it was a bold statement but by the time I got to the final page I realized how accurate it was.
This book is going to inspire a generation to stand up and wrestle their attention back from those exploiting it for money. I can't wait for this to find its to both the syllabi of major universities and the little libraries of suburban neighborhoods.
The book is super easy to read and chock full of fascinating information with very digestible chapters. It's also a much-needed call to arms. We need to stop believing the lie that individual decisions are going to solve this crisis. Very similar to how we used to think that turning off lights and the faucet when we brushed our teeth was going to reverse climate change, there's a belief if we just "unplug" every once in a while, then everything is going to be peachy keen. This sickness goes way beyond personal care. It's a part of a system that desperately needs to be dismantled.
After I finished the book, I did not feel overwhelmed or hopeless. I truly enjoyed reading this book. I especially enjoyed the "roll call" chapter where I got to learn about the different categories of folx who part of this movement can be (I'm an ARTIST!!!!) and the average people who are currently fighting. At the beginning of the book, the writers draw comparisons between this tome and Rachel Carson's seminal, Silent Spring. I thought it was a bold statement but by the time I got to the final page I realized how accurate it was.
This book is going to inspire a generation to stand up and wrestle their attention back from those exploiting it for money. I can't wait for this to find its to both the syllabi of major universities and the little libraries of suburban neighborhoods.
February 11, 2026
This book is terrible. It appropriates ideas that have already been expressed. Commonly it uses the "we" as if this group "The Friends of Attention" own it which is troubling and damaging to the message and ironic as it really does feel like a desperate plea for attention to themselves. I also don't think The Friends (Quakers) would appreciate them trying to take an idea for their own that is a foundation of the Quakers from the outset. The use of language is awful - it feels like a wannabe academic treatise that makes it increasingly polarizing. It uses Truth and Lies which also damages the deeper meaning of patience and presence and honoring the world, your senses through deep attention. The idea of attention - its meditativeness - has been so much better expressed, both poetically and as a lifestyle in so many better treatises/philosophies/writings. Seek these out over these attention seekers who call themselves authors of this book. And to the collective that wrote this book, I would suggest you rethink your position - listen more, speak less. The attempt at dialectic hipness is appalling. As one might say - "Dude, didn't you ever listen and respect your elders and what they had to share?" Because nothing said here is new. and I am so disappointed that they tried to use fracking as a metaphor for big tech's grab at our attention. I really, really, really wanted to love this book because it is the life I have tried to live but this book is too polarizing, too (gulp) short-sighted and ideas so small. Not to mention there is nothing groundbreaking about them despite how the authors portray themselves (its embarrassing).
March 4, 2026
I am really torn about how to rate this book, in many ways its awful, the page count could be halved with literally no impact on the message as about half the pages are empty or just present the same manifesto paragraphs with different bits highlighted, an odd choice consider the authors clear interest in environmentalism. The writing style is frankly attrocious, I can only assume that this was some kind of intentional approach because we're all so distracted so they RANDOMLY capitalize, or sometimes italicise, how about we sometimes go BOLD, its obnoxious and grating.
I'm not really going to criticise the lack of scientific rigour, as I do feel they have somewhat of a decent point in that a scientific approach to attention requires definitions that don't really fit our lived experience and focus more on quantifiable aspects, and there are books that will likely do that better anyway. There is space for a more philosophical approach, but this one just feels seriously lacking.
Overall, the topic is very important, and so the idea of a manifesto of attention is worthwhile in some ways, but this book comes across as fairly condescending at times, utterly naive in others, whilst all clearly pandering to a very specific type of person, mainly West Coast Liberals. Considering this topic affects basically everyone this is a huge problem for this books stated goals, there is absolutely no way this book will bring any kind of broad consensus or lead to any kind of meaningful change, you could even see a world where this book makes the problem worse by turning it into a partisan issue.
I'm not really going to criticise the lack of scientific rigour, as I do feel they have somewhat of a decent point in that a scientific approach to attention requires definitions that don't really fit our lived experience and focus more on quantifiable aspects, and there are books that will likely do that better anyway. There is space for a more philosophical approach, but this one just feels seriously lacking.
Overall, the topic is very important, and so the idea of a manifesto of attention is worthwhile in some ways, but this book comes across as fairly condescending at times, utterly naive in others, whilst all clearly pandering to a very specific type of person, mainly West Coast Liberals. Considering this topic affects basically everyone this is a huge problem for this books stated goals, there is absolutely no way this book will bring any kind of broad consensus or lead to any kind of meaningful change, you could even see a world where this book makes the problem worse by turning it into a partisan issue.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
The attention economy is one of my biggest interests, so I was intrigued by this book when the NetGalley newsletter came round advertising it. Attensity! seems to be a book aimed at introducing people to the concept of attention and attention “fracking” as they put it, and (positively) radicalising them to this very important cause. I love the premise!
I consider myself well-read and well-educated, but had to look up quite a lot of the vocabulary used. I appreciate that the book was written by a team of highly intelligent (and passionate!) people, but I fear the audience they are trying to reach may not have as much patience as a dedicated reader like myself to pause reading every so often to look up definitions.
As other reviewers have already said, this book also definitely needed references and a bibliography for the sources; it would have made the anecdotes more authoritative.
I have to say that the final 25% of the book was the most engaging. I most enjoyed the chapters that focused on traditional art, and on specific attention activists and how their careers and hobbies demonstrate positive, deep use of attention. My interest (or should I say attention?!) was also piqued by the chapters about study as a form of attention, how important it is and how else it can be interpreted, and the one about distraction as a valid form of attention. This last quarter of the book convinced me to round up to 3 stars.
Thank you Particular Books and the authors for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.
I consider myself well-read and well-educated, but had to look up quite a lot of the vocabulary used. I appreciate that the book was written by a team of highly intelligent (and passionate!) people, but I fear the audience they are trying to reach may not have as much patience as a dedicated reader like myself to pause reading every so often to look up definitions.
As other reviewers have already said, this book also definitely needed references and a bibliography for the sources; it would have made the anecdotes more authoritative.
I have to say that the final 25% of the book was the most engaging. I most enjoyed the chapters that focused on traditional art, and on specific attention activists and how their careers and hobbies demonstrate positive, deep use of attention. My interest (or should I say attention?!) was also piqued by the chapters about study as a form of attention, how important it is and how else it can be interpreted, and the one about distraction as a valid form of attention. This last quarter of the book convinced me to round up to 3 stars.
Thank you Particular Books and the authors for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.
March 15, 2026
I wanted to like this book so much, as I feel that we need a movement to fight the tech bros. Unfortunately, this manifesto struck me as shallow, naïve and ditzy.
These guys seriously believe they'll defeat Big Tech (and all the ways in which these companies are contributing to erode democracies the world over) by getting together to knit or play boardgames or paint or solve puzzles. I kid you not.
If you have, say, a book club with your friends that meets once a month, you already are "an attention activist" in their eyes. This banalization of the word "activist" annoyed me to no end.
Of course, it would be great for everyone to gather more often IRL and engage in activities that require our attention in other ways, but being an activist is something else. Besides, nothing keeps you from scrolling the night away after you get home from your book club.
No word here about protesting for legislation that restricts Big Tech's powers (which have been achieved through lack of legislation, lobbying and billions in government contracts). In fact, the authors even write: "Don't hold your breath for a regulatory fix because no law is going to protect us enough". And just because no law is enough, we should disregard the legal aspect of this issue altogether?!
I'm sure Zuckerberg is losing sleep over this.
Last but not least, the language (rather infantilized and with way too much bold, italic and caps) made my woo-woo radar go off. A shame, because some of their ideas are valuable (I like the comparison of the attention economy to fracking, for example).
These guys seriously believe they'll defeat Big Tech (and all the ways in which these companies are contributing to erode democracies the world over) by getting together to knit or play boardgames or paint or solve puzzles. I kid you not.
If you have, say, a book club with your friends that meets once a month, you already are "an attention activist" in their eyes. This banalization of the word "activist" annoyed me to no end.
Of course, it would be great for everyone to gather more often IRL and engage in activities that require our attention in other ways, but being an activist is something else. Besides, nothing keeps you from scrolling the night away after you get home from your book club.
No word here about protesting for legislation that restricts Big Tech's powers (which have been achieved through lack of legislation, lobbying and billions in government contracts). In fact, the authors even write: "Don't hold your breath for a regulatory fix because no law is going to protect us enough". And just because no law is enough, we should disregard the legal aspect of this issue altogether?!
I'm sure Zuckerberg is losing sleep over this.
Last but not least, the language (rather infantilized and with way too much bold, italic and caps) made my woo-woo radar go off. A shame, because some of their ideas are valuable (I like the comparison of the attention economy to fracking, for example).
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Attensity! is a manifesto for reclaiming our attention away from technology companies through collective action. It is a short manifesto statement, with each sentence then broken down into a short essay to expand upon the ideas behind it, which builds towards a message for people to find out more about the Friends of Attention and make their own action towards getting our collective attention back.
This is written as an accessible manifesto that does engage with some more philosophical ideas, but also practical examples. It is written in quite a specific style, including heavy use of text formatting like uppercase letters and italics, and some parts are more effective than others in, ironically, keeping your attention through this style. Overall, it is quite abstract, because it is talking about most technology and all big tech companies, and all of these specific stylistic and content choices mean that it is likely to suit some people and be a bit annoying to others. I oscillated between the two, feeling by the end like I thought the movement was very interesting, but I still wasn't entirely sure what action we were being called to. Maybe it is more rousing if you don't already read and think about the impact of big tech on our lives, as it is a chance to reflect on the control they have on our attention.
This is written as an accessible manifesto that does engage with some more philosophical ideas, but also practical examples. It is written in quite a specific style, including heavy use of text formatting like uppercase letters and italics, and some parts are more effective than others in, ironically, keeping your attention through this style. Overall, it is quite abstract, because it is talking about most technology and all big tech companies, and all of these specific stylistic and content choices mean that it is likely to suit some people and be a bit annoying to others. I oscillated between the two, feeling by the end like I thought the movement was very interesting, but I still wasn't entirely sure what action we were being called to. Maybe it is more rousing if you don't already read and think about the impact of big tech on our lives, as it is a chance to reflect on the control they have on our attention.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews