Saturday, January 07, 2006
Quick! Buy books!
The advent of the Sony Reader may change the book industry - for real, this time. For years, book purists have been lamenting the "death of the book" in the face of digital technology; for years, the paper book has thrived nonetheless (evidence at Chapters is overwhelming). The drawbacks of digital technology, such as the low-quality reading screen of computers, have prevented ebooks from replacing published books. I, for one, feel that the paper book will never become obsolete. However, Sony is making me question my confidence. The new Reader, a hand-held screen about the size of trade paperback, may just change the way people think about books and reading. Read this article from David Derbyshire of The Daily Telegraph; then check out the Reader's main site. Will the book become obsolete? I hope not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The book is dead! I've been saying that the "digital book" is on the way for years (actually, I'm surprised it isn't in widespread use already). Lamenting the "death of the book" is like lamenting the "death of the LP record", or the "death of the CD": it's just the medium used to pass along the content. Replaced by a superior product, keeping the essential stuff (i.e. the words or music) while getting rid of the excess. Arguing that the Sony Reader will be a bad thing is like saying the iPod is a bad thing (which I know you don't believe). Could you imagine, even 15 years ago, that you could fit your entire music library on something the size of a cassette tape? It's incredible and awesome, and a similar thing will happen in books as the technology improves. Stuff like this is GOOD for literature, because it will lower the marginal cost of access to new works, totally change the power structure of the publishing companies, and enable people to take their entire bookshelf with them to their proverbial desert island. And just we'll save a bunch of trees from being used as paper.
But digital is not the same, and certainly is not always better! Now don’t get me wrong, I like (read: adore) my iPod, and revel in the fact that I can have way more music than I really need at my fingertips. But, as I’ve said to you and Garry before, the experience of listening to music in that format is very different from listening to the same tracks on an LP, and, sometimes, I like vinyl better. And, although the newer iPods help to compensate for this with their new snazzy screens, I am sometimes sad when I can’t remember what an album’s cover looked like, or when, more generally, I skip through tracks too easily and lose the sense of an album as a whole, which is certainly something many artists consider critical to their work.
To get back to the point at hand, then, reading a book on a screen will never be the same as reading the same words on paper, as, when reading a book, the experience is not simply about the words. There is a pleasurable tactility to the experience of leafing through a book, sensing its age based upon its musty smell, the fragility of its paper, the type-facing, and the relics-as-bookmarks you’ll discover between the pages. Moreover, as a person who incessantly marks (her own) books, and enjoys reading others’ markings as highly revelatory of their personalities, I can’t help but thing that something of the personal experience will be lost if we simply equate their claimed “paper-like experience” with the real thing. Moreover, for many of us, it is the combination of the visual and tactile experiences of reading that helps us to remember what we read. I think that Sony’s product is impressive, and very much like that it might make people spend more time in front of a book and less time in front of a television (except for the Daily Show, which is the loophole in all rules about TV). Speak about the merits of this product, fine, and I’ll likely agree. But we are not only losing “excess” if this becomes the medium of choice. I’m certain that if you spoke with someone who spends his life putting together books, which is in many ways a great art, he’d agree that books are more than just words.
You dinosaurs can masturbate to your paper books and vinyl until Google shares hit $500 or until the Ottoman empire falls (whichever comes first), but I while we may FEEL there is something different about a paper book campared to a digital book reader (and there is), it is hardly fundamental. I too like to sit in bed with a book, and find it to be immensely satisfying. But I think that is just because we're used to it, rather than anything unique about paper books that appeals to our senses. Over time, this type of association will cease to be as important, much like how I used to find it difficult to read long papers on the computer, but now can accomplish it with ease, and find many advantages to doing so.
Granted, I am pretty consistently techno-philic, so it's easy for me to celebrate the new digital age of books. I also don't mark up my books (although I see no reason why this can't be done with digital technology, and has the added benefit of being able to turn it on or off, for those of us who prefer to read clean books). I see no reason why putting a book together on the Sony Reader can't be considered as much as an "art" as putting a paper book together. And it certainly isn't less "real", it's just different. I agree that we may "lose" something when we switch technologies (mostly due to our enduring, if perhaps misguided, human passion for nostalgia). But we also gain things, and on net I think people will (eventually) choose the advantages of digitial age in books.
And since I’m on dorm duty tonight and have time for it, here’s a different take:
But if books are read digitally, we’ll undermine traditional paper books!
Replace “books are read digitally” with “gays are allowed to marry” and “paper books” with “marriage”. It’s not a strong argument in either situation, and I would hope that in neither case are we talking about replacing one with the other – we’re just adding another option to the mix, which will make some people happy (me) and will (ideally) be ignored by others (Garry, Molly). I don’t really want to see traditional books disappear, but I think having the digital option available is pretty cool (and useful). Just as with gay marriage, there’s no need to be threatened by the option being out there.
I don’t disagree with any of your points about the advantages of the technology, and I do envision a day in the very near future when I would be able to mark up my digital books, and then a non-marker like you (for shame!) could borrow that book and impermanently erase those markings so that you would not be distracted by their genius. As I said before, there are many great things about Sony’s product. However, while I don’t even consider myself terribly bibliophilic, I would continue to disagree with you about whether or not the digital experience of a book is less “real.” There is a unique joy to thumbing through books, to visiting great bookstores like Powells or Strand, and to loaning your personal copy of a favorite novel to a friend. You even agreed with this point, that something would be “[lost] . . . if we switch technologies.” You seem to reject the sense of (emotional) loss about this loss, though, claiming that our tendency for nostalgia may even be misguided. This sentiment is, I think, the fundamental difference in our points; we both agree that something is gained and something is lost with Sony’s product, but our costs and benefits weigh differently. If it is nostalgia that will keep my books on my shelves, well, then, I think that’s plenty enough reason for me.
Some point taken (more below), but, to check the progress of our little dorm-duty-bound debate, I do think that comparing the debate over books (digital vs. paper) to the debate over marriage (homosexual vs. heterosexual) belittles the importance of the latter. And I don’t think that Garry (I’m speculating based upon what he said, although he could clearly comment further, and with greater accuracy) or I (and I can assure you here) meant to imply that we would resist the existence of the technology (or any other choice). In fact, I love the fact that Sony made this technology, and, as I said, will be glad if it gets more people reading, or gets more authors published, or whatever. Great, good, fantastic. My original point was only that I resisted your idea that the new technology is superior; it is in some ways, but is inferior in others, and the strengths and weaknesses of the experience depend upon our personal preferences. For me, something is lost, and I apologize if I in any way implied that everyone would have to agree with me about that (here is where the point was taken, for perhaps I spoke / wrote too emphatically). Clearly we all need to make decisions about our book-buying and book-reading habits for ourselves. Just as I would force anyone to live according to my preferences, I would also never make them read books according to my preferences. However, I would urge you to turn your point on yourself; can’t I like paper books, and be hesitant about digital media in my life, without being accused of being a “[dinosaur]” and being told to “masturbate to [my] paper books?” Clearly you are free to say and feel what you want about our respective libraries, but hopefully we can also learn to respect the preferences that explain their composition.
I apologize for my crass sense of humour regarding your prehistoric lineage, and I completely agree that gay marriage is much more important than digital books (which was sort of the point). Something is gained and something is lost, and we'll all make the valuations about the net effect as individuals, which is as it should be.
However, I don't see why reading a book on a digital reader is less "real", though. What about the joy of scrolling through the pages on the touch pad, applying just the right pressure to move the screen at the correct pace? Or browsing through Amazon.com in the comfort of my living room, where everything is always in stock and I get to pick the music that's on in the background? Or uploading your friend's digital copy of "Great Expectations"? Why are those not real? They seem real to me. Granted, they're different (perhaps substantially different), but it reflects an alternate reality, not the absence of reality.
For me, the thrill of using new technology is worth something, and that ADDS to the experience, rather than detracts from it. Of course, I'm a heartless futurist who has no respect for tradition or the emotional component of art.
At any rate, I encourage you to read (and mark) away! If you get enjoyment from flipping the pages and smelling the paper, by all means go for it! As you know, I am a firm believer in maximizing personal fulfillment and happiness. If those old books are the way to do this, I fully encourage you to indulge.
My lesson for the evening: don't get drawn into discussions about the less-tangible aspects of the artistic experience with you, because it's really outside of my element. :)
Scott, if I have to convince you of the pure pleasure of entering a used bookstore, then any argument I may have for the paper book will be moot. Also, reread Fahrenheit 451: it also presents the book as a medium that isn't as important as the message within. Molly, I think you would really enjoy a book by Sven Birkerts called The Gutenberg Elegies. He, like us, loves all the intangibles that makes books so great.
Post a Comment