A World Without Books…?
They will defend the physical book as an irreplaceable treasure, dwelling in covetous detail on every aspect of it: the paper, the typefaces, the binding. They will talk about its tactile pleasures, about the inimitable scent of dusty vellum and leather, and compare these things to the unnatural, unpleasant, uncomfortable experience of reading on a screen. They will cite the famous line of Borges: “I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.” …
Reading this quote from Bell’s TNR article “The Bookless Future” made me feel as if a bunch of words had been stolen out of my mouth. Then, I realized that this is not a good argument for the preservation of physical libraries (with the exception of the part about the “uncomfortable experience of reading on a screen). The truth is that the digitization of every book ever written is well on its way to happening, and paper copies of books are likely to end up encased in glass next to the Book of Kells, with a white-gloved museum curator turning to a new page every few months.
This democratization of scholarly works is a good thing, and as Bell says: “What really matters, particularly at this early stage, is not to damn or to praise the eclipse of the paper book or the digital complication of its future, but to ensure that it happens in the right way, and to minimize the risks.”
I agree with Bell when he suggests that the true danger of reading online is that it turns you into a bad reader. I don’t know why (perhaps it will be explained in the readings I haven’t finished yet), but I always seem to absorb less when I read on an electronic device. Does anyone know why it is easier to retain information when you read something on paper rather than online?
One of the best things about online books is obviously the cost. I would imagine it’s easier to get your book published online than it is to get it printed, bound, and sent to Barnes and Noble. This is great for us as scholars, as we all stand a greater chance of being published either as an online book or in an online journal.
Even with the innumerable positive aspects of online publishing…I still think paradise will be a library– and not a computer lab.
I agree. It may be old-fashioned, but I still love paper books and am skeptical about e-readers.
Well said, and despite my gorgeouuus iPad, I share your love of print books. I have to wonder though if it really will be a more cost effective solution. For example, right now digital books are NOT cheaper; they might be infinitely cheaper to make but definitely not to buy.
Also, I still believe there is a certain passivity when you sit at a screen in opposition to reading a physical book. I do better on my iPad than on my computer; on my computer there are too many distractions.
In my cartography course, Dr. Petrik was explaining serif vs. sans-serif and why one works better for digital reading. We kind of hinted on this earlier on, but serif fonts can’t get the full curvature of the tops of letters in pixel form. Therefore, when you read (especially graduate-style) you’re looking only at the tops of the letters. So, if they are harder to display through pixels, the harder it is to read them.
That only explains why skimming on say a PDF causes less retention, but it doesn’t help the fact that we still skim-read. I don’t know how to get over that.
I am with Charlotte on the distractions. I think that is a major problem that I have with reading on a computer. It makes me think a single purpose e-reader (i.e. – Kindle or other similar technology) might work better for me. I have yet to bite the bullet.
Well, I have to go with the old fashion group, I love my books. Reading things on line for me takes longer, taking notes, plus like many of you said, distractions and such. Right now, I share my computer with my 14 year old son and between my needing it and he using it for school, sitting and reading at the computer is not really an option for me right now.