How necessary is lengthy writing?

I just finished reading a very thought-provoking (and reasonably lengthy) piece from Nick Carr at the Atlantic Monthly called Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Of course, the article isn’t really about Google, it’s about how the internet in general is rewiring our brains to give us all information ADD. Nick warns:

Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

But like Scott Karp, I’m not convinced that we’re losing the capacity for deep thought as much as we might be changing the way that we come to our conclusions.

What’s the real difference between reading ten chapters of a book and reading thirty shorter articles and studies online if they relate to the same topic. As Scott puts it:

Nick romanticizes the “contemplation” that comes with reading a book. But it’s possible that the output of our old contemplation can now be had in larger measure through a new entirely non-linear process.

Nick’s right that the internet is rewiring our brains. But what that means is that we can’t measure the quality of our thought the same way that we use to. I think we’re starting to draw conclusions less by following a single line of reasoning (a book narrative) and more by finding a series of interconnected nodes, and then finding the middle point where they all intersect.