Books are speshul!
March 3, 2009 8 Comments
I wonder if as many people complained about the transition from hand made books to the printing press as we have complainers for the transition from traditional book to electronic. I mean, you have practically the same benefits in this transition (cheaper cost, more availability, less work) and the same drawbacks (less of a physical artifact, less of a work of art, less special and rare).
Just thinking out loud. The people that complain act like books have always been books, have always been tied to the same medium, forgetting that books once lived on scrolls, on stone tablets, on any number of different *things*. It’s easy to confuse vehicle with content. Especially in a physical object. But it just seems odd that these naysayers are forgetting the key point: books evolve. Slowly, slowly, slowly, but they do evolve. The written word is a form of technology, and perhaps the oldest technology to date.
About pauljessup
Well, there was a quite a bit of issue with the printing press, on many levels, when it came out. I think at that time the issue was less one of artistry, but of availability. Books had been something that only rich people could afford–even up until the 19th century, really–and I think it horrified some of the upper crust to think that slovenly peasants could get the same books as they could.
The Kindle, however, clearly won’t have that effect, not until the price is reasonable for average people. Unlike Dickens, who could publish in his local paper and reach thousands, the Kindle is expensive enough that you have to either be well-to-do or scrounge to get it. And actually, it reminds me a little of the Kelmscott Chaucer which was a black and white version of Chaucer. It didn’t have the vivid beauty of a painted manuscript, but William Morris and his buddies made it a highly emotive work nonetheless–artistic and functional. I think Kindle needs to continue going that route of making it feel almost like a book, and trying not to cut corners (not in a BSG way of course).
Actually, I wasn’t talking about the Kindle, but ebooks in general. That’s the thing- the Kindle is getting all the buzz right now, but ebooks were being sold in large numbers before the Kindle. I really think that as more devices come out, a platform agnostic approach will become more and more viable. Sure the Kindle is big, mostly due to Stephen King and Oprah, but at the same time Average Joe reader cannot afford one. And that’s were a powerful piece of software that actually takes advantage of the medium could really make a killer power play here.
But no one has really picked up the gauntlet yet. We’re close with Adobe Digital Editions and Bookworm, but at the same time both of them are missing some key functionality. Once ebooks are truly portable, then you’ll see a perfect storm of acceptance.
That’s true. I shouldn’t have just said “Kindle” but it’s been on me brain. And commenting in the morning before the coffee has settled in is also probably not the most brilliant move
Lol. Well, it’s an easy mistake to make since EVERYONE is talking about the Kindle. Kindle kindle kindle kindle. I just don’t think that it’s going to be what we’re reading on in 5 years. Sure, it’s close, but I think this is still a transitional device.
I’m not sure this negates the argument. Sure, if someone says “but books have always been this way” then they’re being idiotic; but we’re not all saying that. I’ve never even thought of my dislike of ebooks in terms of continuity. I just have zero interest in ebooks because I can’t fill a library with them and I’m not that fond of reading from screens.
But again, those aren’t really arguments. The first is pretty much a non-argument- you like libraries. Libraries are neat, I like them too. But this doesn’t mean “ebooks won’t replace real books”. Liking libraries, putting books on shelves, that isn’t an argument against adoption. It’s a personal opinion.
The screen reading issue is only mostly a non-issue these days. I say mostly because
1. You read stuff on screens all the time. You’re reading something on a screen right now. I bet (as Cory Doctorow once said) the amount of screen reading you do in a week on the internet is equal to at least the length of one novel.
2. E-ink addresses this fantastically. It’s small, it’s comfortable, and it reads just like ink on paper (mostly because it is ink on paper). Right now the only problem with e-ink is what Natania mentioned above, price.
Ahh, I thought you were criticising people whose personal opinions were biased against ebooks. My bad! I totally admit it’s personal opinion. That’s why I don’t normally get involved in discussions like these. I agree that it’s pretty much inevitable we’ll move much more to ebooks. I just hope we get to keep books too.
(Although, in answer to point 1, yes, I read plenty on a screen. Which is another reason not to read fiction on screens as well, imo.)
Well, I was more criticizing people (and of course, I can’t find the link anymore) who refuse to believe that ebooks are the next evolution for books due to personal reasons.