Hamlet's Blackberry

William Powers, “Hamlet’s Blackberry: A Practical Philosophy For Building A Good Life In The Digital Age,” HarperCollins, 2010, 267 pp.

This book may be helpful for those people who find themselves checking Facebook as soon as they wake up, answering e-mails on their portable device while simultaneously surfing the web, always in an unremitting state of tension. (As I am retired, none of this applies to me but I read it anyway because I have the time, am under no tension, and do not feel like it is criticizing my behavior). The author is not criticizing any one of these multiple devices or website addictions; it is the multi-tasking, the constantly divided attention, that he defines as the problem. The aim of Hamlet's Blackberry is to help teach people how to connect more wisely. For instance, it is estimated that unnecessary interruptions and consequent recovery time now eat up an average of 28 percent of the working day (p. 60). So, it appears to me, this book is for the people least likely to read it. I have enough of these devices that I was able to relate to the point(s) the author is making, but since retirement I am confident I have escaped from addiction. Of course I have an Ipod, Ipad2, laptop PC, desktop PC, Kindle, Garmin, and a cell phone as well as a land line--but no partridge in a pear tree.

By the way, in case you wonder about the title: Back in Shakespeare’s time a device was invented that you could carry around in your pocket, write on it, wipe it clean and again write on it. It is likely that Shakespeare carried one in his pocket; I carry a small notebook in my pocket every day, apparently much like William.

My Notes:
Pg. 34: One reason South Korea has long ranked among the most connected countries on earth is that it’s more obsessed with online gaming than any other culture.

Pg. 117: Choose one idea a day to think about more deeply. Train the mind to tune out the chaos, through the art of concentration (Seneca).

Pg. 142: English law around 1500 made a distinction between literate people accused of committing felonies and illiterate ones. In certain cases, accused criminals who could read were tried in ecclesiastical courts, which did not impose the death penalty. The illiterate, meanwhile, went before government courts, where death was a frequent punishment. In effect, people were hanged as a direct result of the fact that they couldn’t read.