"Digital Lethargy is a book about decentering digital technologies. His definition of the digital is expansive; it includes workers, servers and infrastructures, environments, as well as users. It also includes historical contexts. It's the kind of far-reaching exploration that new media studies (as it's come to be known) is lacking and sorely needs. By exploring digital technology through art, Tung-Hui Hu creates ways of thinking about what it means to live with, use, and be used by digital technology"--
Tung-Hui Hu is a poet and a media scholar. A former network engineer, Hu is interested in understanding the hidden mechanisms within digital culture, and imagining alternatives for its future. He is an associate professor of English at the University of Michigan, and his research has been featured on BBC Radio 4, CBS News, Boston Globe, and many other venues.
His new book is Digital Lethargy: Dispatches from an Age of Disconnection, an exploration of burnout, isolation, and disempowerment in the digital underclass. Hu currently lives in Rome, where he is a 2022-23 Rome Prize Fellow in Literature at the American Academy in Rome.
The concept of this book is really interesting, and certainly one that will spark conversation. Its execution, though, left a bit to be desired for me: it's too technical for my taste and brain at this point, heh; ergo a DNF.
I do think a discussion on the digital world we live in is necessary, along with the rise of misinformation and other things we did not see coming with the advancement of technology. All tech inventions address a need of some kind--but it's impossible to know down-the-line ramifications up front. (Much like the pandemic; we had no idea how it would play out psychologically or on our mental health, let alone physical.)
I just personally need a Cliff's Notes version of this one. :)
I received an eARC of the book from the publisher via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.
Reading this book, it was hard for me to imagine that I could have been born anywhere other than MIT. That is a huge compliment from me.
This is an analysis, with great content of educated criticism, of the role of new technologies and connectivity in our society, psychology, economy, and the role it has in inequality. It forces us to put our ideas about it in perspective, not with the desire to attack progress, but to call us, from multiple literary fragments, to pause and question digital capitalism.
Thank you to NetGalley and to MIT Press for this ARC.
Once in a while I like to read something challenging, something with concepts that may go over my head. Sometimes this happens accidentally, like with this book, which I requested for the description, rather than because I knew much about it before going in. The book feels like it is directed towards a certain subsection of academia, possibly those working in areas of technology, human interaction, and maybe futurity. Having said all of that, I really enjoyed having my poor little brain challenged, and my thoughts stretched; which is to say, this is not a light read.
I carefully followed where the author led, and took many, many notes. I thought lots (more) about personhood, and robots in service—human, and otherwise. I thought about “Third World” labour, and how today’s AI is really that (or, “artificial artificial intelligence“). I thought about neoliberalism, and how it sells false hope (this, in relation to Afro-pessimism). I learnt about timepass, which is a really wonderful concept. I thought a lot about the digital supply chain, and (all of) our place in it; and about “race neutrality” in technology. I also have new ideas about the widespread use of Black people in memes.
So, if any of these things interest you, this book will interest you. However, be warned: it is challenging for the average reader (or, me). The author makes a good, if complex case for lethargy (defined in the book) as a form of agency, arguing that technocapitalism wants us to always be doing something, or waiting to do something.
My rating: 8/10, mainly for introducing me to new ideas, and for making me work.
Just awful. When it's not completely undecipherable (85% of the time) it's just plain poor analysis. This is the sort of thing I imagine people make fun of academics about.