What Type of Reader Are You?    

   While reading The New York Times some interesting questions have been raised in my first year writing classes. What is the purpose of reading? What is the best format for reading? Over the course of debating and discussing what the right answer to these is I’ve finally come to a conclusion that there is no specific answer to these questions. There is no single purpose of reading, everyone is reading for a different purpose. As the purpose behind each reader changes, so does the form in which they read.   

   According to literary researcher, Louise Rosenblatt, there are two stances that can be applied to any format of reading. Whichever stance the reader takes is going to affect what aspects of the text the reader retains. First, there is the efferent stance which is “the kind of reading in which attention is centered predominantly on what is to be extracted and retained after the reading event.” Then, there is the aesthetic stance “In this kind of reading, the reader adopts an attitude of readiness to focus attention on what is being lived through during the reading event...the aesthetic reader pays attention to—savors—the qualities of the feelings, ideas, situations, scenes personalities, and emotions that are called forth and participates in the tensions, conflicts, and resolutions of the images ideas, and scenes as they unfold.” (Roesenblatt, pg 1372-1373)

    Based on that theory it is easier to understand why some individuals prefer digital over print reading and visa versa. If one is taking an efferent stance to reading they would likely prefer a digital format. The reason behind that thinking is that efferent readers read to retain information and when they read on digital formats they are able to go beyond the given text. For example, while I was reading online an article about the Israeli airstrike in Syria I was presented with links to two other related articles and a related video. This three links gave me much more information on the subject than I would have had if I’d just read the one article. Looking at all of this, digitally reading seems to have more benefits for the efferent reader.

    However, if one is reading at an aesthetic stance then they would more likely prefer reading in a print hard-copy format. While outside sources are helpful for the efferent reader, they could be damaging to the aesthetic reader. The aesthetic reader wants to connect to the text itself and the distractions that digital reading presents can make it hard for the reader to fully focus on the text. With the print hard-copy the reader can go wherever they prefer to read and focus solely on the text. 

    Someone like my teacher who reads The New York Times out of enjoyment is probably taking an aesthetic stance to reading it, and is probably using a print format of reading for that. Whereas someone like me, the student, would take an efferent stance to the assigned reading focusing my attention on gaining information to do well on the test or the essay, and since my attention is focused on retaining information I am much more likely to use a digital format when reading The New York Times.

   So it makes sense that there is an ongoing argument between print and digital reading, but I don't think this is a thing that any two people are ever going to agree on. They both have there benifits for these specific types of readers, and they both have there downfalls for specific types of readers.