I found this article on Slate Magazine (I'm properly citing my source, btw). Yes, it concerns the ongoing debate about Google's intent to make millions of books "searchable" on the web and the implications of that. It's a good article, I think, but of course I agree, so of course I think it's a good article. The paragraph that nailed it for me was this one:
"We must remember, looking to the future, that books, as a medium, face competition. If books are too hard to find relative to other media, all authors of books lose out, and authors of searchable media like the Web, win. And that's too bad for those who love books—those who still like a slow read better than the blustery urgency of blogs."
We do live in a commercial world and some people - indeed, most - would rather do a web search on a topic than read a book about it. But perhaps if we think differently about reading, then that will change. Is the web a competitor with print? Certainly. Is it making print obsolete? Not yet. Not if books and print culture can move ahead to meet that competition. This is an interesting idea to ponder and I will return to it from time to time. Just how much are blogs affecting books? I'll read more and let you know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your tongue in cheek comment about citation brings up a pretty relevant point for me. I read a lot of stuff online now, and I generally read a lot of non-fiction (in both online and print form). And I'm getting hooked on hyperlinks for citation and/or to offer the opportunity to explore an issue in greater detail. It's frustrating not to have that option in traditional print media (and most newspapers' online editions have pathetic links in articles). When reading non-fiction, I think the ability to link to other related articles is incredibly important and the lack of hyperlinks are a big drawback of traditional media/journalism. The times, they are a-changing, and print has to keep pace.
I agree. The big advantage of online publications is the ability to instantly update readers on back stories. It affects fiction as well as non-fiction. Traditionally, readers would have to go to other sources to find further information; online, they can just click on a link or do a Google search. It is a feature that we discussed in my "History of the Book" class a couple of years ago. If an online version of a book like, say, War and Peace features hyperlinks to the history of the Napoleonic Wars or to a biography of Tolstoy, do those texts become part of the overall text, or are they appendices? Or are they completely separate? It is this discussion that worries purists. Regardless, the instant availability of information is quickly becoming a requirement, and publications, online or print, must accomodate that or be left behind.
Oh, those purists...always worrying.
Post a Comment