This is an interesting article that poses an important question to authors, especially those who tend to write stories that contain philosophical, theological or metaphysical themes and ideas and/or those whose stories have a greater focus on the interiority of their character(s) and/or the relationship dynamic between people - by default, the type of stories that are usually more dependent on the intricacies of language and frequently require more complex sentence structure.
It's been suggested that a writer always needs to write to his or her audience, but that a writer also must write what's in them to write. So, if the above types of stories are what an author is called strongly to write, how does he or she present these ideas, which inherently require more focused attention, a slower, more careful reading and deeper thought (more "work") on the part of the reader, to a growing audience of readers who are more familiar with and expect what technology presents as the norm: rapid absorption of concise bits of information, immediate gratification and a more exterior, visual transmission of ideas rather than one which is more interior and language-oriented?
Definitely a fascinating question for me as I don't feel I've figured that out yet. Are there many writers who are challenged by this, pre-modern technology readers who find more recently-released books to be lacking in certain respects because of it and what modern authors are known for succeeding extremely well at combining the two, seemingly at odds, facets of writing?