Is the book, as we know it, dead?
December 11, 2009
Could it really be that easy? I’m sure this conversation is going on in towns and cities, and villages – cafes, and restaurants, news rooms, and publishing houses across the planet. Is the book – in its conventional form – dead? Are the Kindles and the Sony Readers and the Tablet Macs (apparently, Apple has recently taken over the Tablet Mac trademark) the new books? Or is this just a passing phase?
My friend, who shall remain unnamed here, suggested I was an idiot for proposing that one of the reasons I preferred a physical paper and ink book over the electronic versions was the tangible sense of past, present and future. With paper and ink books, when I am on page 73 I can see the pages I have read, feel them, and smell them if I want – they have a physical presence in my world. I can easily and lovingly grasp the journey I’ve been on. And the future is there in the following 300 pages. I can see where I’m about to go. The present? Well, that’s page 73, about the middle – the section where Sarah decides to leave the Mormon Church and take up drinking scotch – I’ve got a piece of paper torn from my journal as a book mark. There is pleasure in this knowing, for me. I find joy in this tactile journey as well as the emotional/cerebral journey hidden in those strung-together words.
Now, with the electronic book form, I can know there are roughly 400 pages in my book but the physical form of that book never changes. Whether it’s an 80-page novella, or a 1,000-page monster the Kindle doesn’t change, the Sony Reader is static, the (rumoured) Tablet Mac – well you get the point.
My friend looked at me and said: “That’s dumb. That’s a dumb argument.” He went on to say that the real argument is simple – books are, by far, the superior media. That’s it. That was his argument. Books are the superior media. The fonts are crisp and clean and easy to read, always. Not so for the electronic books. Reading a book is rarely hard on your eyes. Not so for the electronic books. Books are low-maintenance. They do not require plugging in. Books don’t have screens that can get scratched. I can read a book in the bathtub without worrying about being zapped. I can read a book in a swimming pool in Mexico. Or in a hottub at my sister’s house. Books sit on a shelf until you’re ready to read. Electronic paper has come a long, long way but comparing a page of a Kindle/Sony Reader with the same page out of a book is almost funny. The superior media is the printed page. The printed page, and paper, are the overwhelmingly preferred archival media right now. Across the planet; if you want a record, if you want to keep something, it ought to be on paper. Paper lasts. It “archives” better than any other known media.
Either way you look at it, I don’t think the printed book is going anywhere. It’s going to co-exist with its inferior cousin, the electronic/digital book, for some time to come…Amen…
5 Comments
1. Rebecca @ The Book Lady's Blog had this to say: Dec 11, 2009 ~ 14:47 ~ #
As a book lover and former bookseller, I’m here to contend that the book is far from dead. E-books are an exciting new development, and I think they’re here to stay, but they cannot possibly cause the extinction of physical, ink-and-paper books. And it’s for just the reasons you mentioned—-most book lovers are passionate not just about the contents of the books they read but about the whole experience of reading: holding a book, feeling its weight in their hands, turning the pages, smelling the smells. As long as there are book lovers, there will be real books.
Though many people compare e-books to MP3s and contend they will bring about the extinction of physical books in much the same way that digital music has eclipsed CDs, they’re talking apples and oranges. How many people really loved the tactile experience of holding a CD? When you listen to music, you don’t have much interaction with the music delivery device; when you read, it’s all about your interaction with the story delivery device.
Just my two cents, but it needs to be said.
2. thomas had this to say: Dec 11, 2009 ~ 15:19 ~ #
Rebecca! That’s a lot more than two cents!
Thank you and I couldn’t agree more.
I think this is a discussion worth having. I’m willing to be swayed, or moved. But so far, e-readers are kinda cute little toys; less elegant, less durable, less enduring. This not to say they don’t have potential.
I look forward to more discussion.
3. Elena Ray had this to say: Dec 13, 2009 ~ 20:39 ~ #
Before books people memorized all the texts and there were story tellers (people in the flesh telling a story). TV did not kill the book. Paper is so beautiful a medium. I’m collecting old books for an art project but have no idea what to do with them they are already so beautiful esp the old part.
4. Mike Gravel had this to say: Dec 14, 2009 ~ 23:19 ~ #
E-readers seem to make sense for some forms of content – i.e. news. I don’t know…I hope that a screen never takes the place of a book. There is too much tactile joy with a book – especially one with exquisite design. The feel of a letterpress cover, the heavy stock, the grain of the page, and of course the care paid to typography, margins, page proportions, line lengths, etc. Can a Kindle replicate a volume printed letterpress?
Then again, the idea of carrying the equivalent of a multitude of books inside a device not much larger than a calculator is appealing from convenience and environmental perspectives. In the long run, environmental reasons may push the e-book to ubiquity.
5. Daniel Poitras had this to say: Dec 15, 2009 ~ 08:05 ~ #
Yes, Mike is on to something. I think the e-book readers will be ideal for students. No lugging big ass heavy books. Y0u can search the texts for particular words or phrases. Though if this does come true, it might remove that old fashion skill of pouring over pages and pages looking for relevant information.
Kinda like what Wikipedia has done to libraries.
Maybe we can use it for graphic novels.