by Hannah Stewart

In Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he makes the stipulation that the internet is “tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory.” (Carr 63) His argument is made through examination of historical shifts in the way information has been transferred, such as the change from written to typed communication, and he aligns himself with the mindset of great thinkers in the past. He also uses a broad variety of sources to back up his work from both personal experience and a more scientific standpoint. While his argument was strong, there was much to be desired, and many points of contradiction.

Carr makes some very keen rhetorical moves within this essay. His use of HAL from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as an example in the introduction functions as a very effective hook and helps set the playfully serious tone for the remainder of the essay. He remains conversational throughout the work, making it much easier to digest the more scientific factoids in the second half. His transitions are masterful, smoothly shifting gears on us between each point and clearly directing us where he wanted to go. About midway through the work, he uses a beautifully worded phrase to indicate his transition from more anecdotal evidence to cold, hard fact. The simple line “Anecdotes alone don’t prove much” (Carr 65) very clearly moves us from one form of evidence to another.

However, after examining this essay with a more critical eye, it becomes clear that he made some rather large mistakes as well. The first gaping hole in his line of reasoning appears rather quickly, but is not made apparent until farther into the essay. Nicholas Carr spends the first page and a half laying the foundation of his argument on the premise that we, as readers, have lost the ability to immerse ourselves in written works of more than a few paragraphs. Yet, after having made this explicit claim, he goes on to write a relatively long essay spanning 12 full pages of text. While this could have been a good strategy to prove his point, he did a wonderful job of keeping the reader’s attention all the way through, even when it came to his hardest scientific evidence. While this was certainly skillful on his part, it severely uprooted his argument.

The second big problem found in Carr’s text is his use of historical evidence. He aligns himself with ancient thinkers like Socrates and Plato, drawing parallels between his reaction to Google and their reactions to the written word overtaking the spoken word. While this point sounds strong at first, and had much potential for furthering his argument, in the end he allowed it to undermine his entire proposition. He did this in ways, both of which had greatly detrimental effects.

Carr’s first trip up here is the way in which he proposes these examples. His transition into them prepares the reader mentally for what is coming, and opens the mind to absorb it. But, upon having stated these stories, he leaves them hanging to an extent. Instead of clearly tying them back to his main point and emphasizing them to his advantage, he almost opens the door for doubt in the reader’s mind, and starts giving away his credibility. One such example would be his use of quotes from Friedrich A. Kittler, where he opens and closes his paragraph with hanging quotes. He leaves it at “from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style” (Carr 68) without tying it off, or in any way integrating it smoothly into the body of the essay.

He follows this trail into his last mistake, pertaining to how he handles these historical examples. In his closing remarks, he states that the reader should be “skeptical of [his] skepticism” (Carr 74). While the humility of this statement is highly respectable, it did him no favors in this context. In fact, it seemed entirely out of place after reading all of his groundwork up to that point. He put so much work into building a credible argument, collecting source after source from many different outlets and creating a well-rounded, thorough argument, one cannot deny that he was passionate about the subject. It seemed a shame for him cast it off so backhandedly. He loses the more serious tone he’s held throughout the essay, and it sounds almost as if he’s letting out a resigned sigh in the last paragraph, convinced his words will have no effect.

This alludes to the final downfall of Carr’s essay. Over the course of his 12 pages, he offers a large number of reliable sources, and outlines a very strong argument -previously mentioned irrational anomalies aside. The entire work seemed electrically charged as Carr drives it towards the conclusion, and even for the logical fallacies he could have finished strong. However, it appears that he suffered a drastic change of heart over the last two pages. As Donald Rayfield once said, “If in Act I you have a pistol hanging on the wall, then it must fire in the last act.” Whether Carr didn’t fire at all or simply misfired terribly is up to each reader to decide. With phrases like “the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed world would offer” followed by the thought that “perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct,” (Carr 74) his closing was anticlimactic, and left the reader wondering why they had read his argument after all.

In the end, I believe Nicholas Carr is perfectly able to write a convincing argument. He knows how to find sources and use them to his advantage, and is a master in creating a smooth flow throughout his written work. His train of thought, however, clearly derailed in this essay. Perhaps this was his goal, to prove the effects the internet has had on his brain by using such flawed, simplistic logic. If so, I applaud him for his creativity. Otherwise, I must say I am rather disappointed.

The irony of his lack of critical thinking in this essay that judges the younger generation’s ability to perform that same act is blatant, and could even be taken as disrespectful. Critical thinking is just as alive as it always has been, and this essay itself is proof. While those with weaker minds may struggle with code shifting between browsing information online and immersing themselves in a longer text, this has always been the case. Throughout the ages, people have had to learn to adjust. While Carr’s argument was directed at an older audience consisting primarily of his peers, he appeared to have forgotten entirely that he had younger readers as well. Perhaps the real issue we face today isn’t so much about the ability to think critically, as it is putting the old, overly generalized internet stereotypes Carr uses to rest.