The Future of the Book II
I am so impressed with the thoughtfulness of the comments to my previous post on The Future of the Book that I had to continue the conversation further.
lurban's point that books will exist as objects for children, as they do now, underscores the importance of real (as opposed to virtual) play for young children. Children need hands-on experience with the physical world, which is one of the reasons elementary school teachers use "manipulatives" to teach math concepts. Books also stimulate the imagination in a way that, for reasons I have yet to figure out, screens do not. patty1943's "non-reader grandson" confirms for me that this is not an either-or situation ( I'm not really sure he can be called a non-reader if he loves that book, maybe just not an avid reader).
All the comments have one thing in common--the book will continue. I have to agree. That is what happens. One form doesn't fully replace another, as jongibbs noted. If you think about it, the broadsheets that were common in the 17th Century (and earlier?) are still with us--as posters. Even though the college where I teach is fully networked and classes must all have some sort of on-line presence (minimally, the syllabus must be posted), the bathrooms are still plastered with posters and announcements, most of them put up by student groups.
Although I don't have one, I can see where e-readers would be useful, especially if you travel a great deal or are able (as I am not) to take public transportation to work. Like audio books, they have their place. I can even see myself owning one someday. All the same, I'm not going to get rid of my personal library, because my library is not the collection of books I have read. Instead, it is the collection of books I have read and decided I would want to read and re-read and dog-ear and underline and otherwise make part of my life. These are the books I pull off the shelf and flip open at the very page I want (or really close to it). These physical books have associations--the Wallace Stevens I bought for class in graduate school, the novels of Barbara Kingsolver that blew me away the first time I read them, the Pride and Prejudice that I have read so often the binding is now breaking, which reminds me of the year I spent in Vienna as well as the many times I have moved it. The novels of Georgette Heyer, doyenne of Regency romance writers, that I turn to when I'm sick or need comfort--this one almost a replacement collection for the ones I sold when I thought I needed more shelf space and could spare them (I obviously couldn't).
So, I'd break it down like this--for books as commodities, consumables in the sense of one-read and basta, e-readers make perfect sense. But for books as objects, repositories, re-usable resources of the mind, physical books will continue on.
What do you all think? Do you own e-readers? What do you use them for? Do you still buy books? If so, what kind and why?
Inquiring minds want to know.
lurban's point that books will exist as objects for children, as they do now, underscores the importance of real (as opposed to virtual) play for young children. Children need hands-on experience with the physical world, which is one of the reasons elementary school teachers use "manipulatives" to teach math concepts. Books also stimulate the imagination in a way that, for reasons I have yet to figure out, screens do not. patty1943's "non-reader grandson" confirms for me that this is not an either-or situation ( I'm not really sure he can be called a non-reader if he loves that book, maybe just not an avid reader).
All the comments have one thing in common--the book will continue. I have to agree. That is what happens. One form doesn't fully replace another, as jongibbs noted. If you think about it, the broadsheets that were common in the 17th Century (and earlier?) are still with us--as posters. Even though the college where I teach is fully networked and classes must all have some sort of on-line presence (minimally, the syllabus must be posted), the bathrooms are still plastered with posters and announcements, most of them put up by student groups.
Although I don't have one, I can see where e-readers would be useful, especially if you travel a great deal or are able (as I am not) to take public transportation to work. Like audio books, they have their place. I can even see myself owning one someday. All the same, I'm not going to get rid of my personal library, because my library is not the collection of books I have read. Instead, it is the collection of books I have read and decided I would want to read and re-read and dog-ear and underline and otherwise make part of my life. These are the books I pull off the shelf and flip open at the very page I want (or really close to it). These physical books have associations--the Wallace Stevens I bought for class in graduate school, the novels of Barbara Kingsolver that blew me away the first time I read them, the Pride and Prejudice that I have read so often the binding is now breaking, which reminds me of the year I spent in Vienna as well as the many times I have moved it. The novels of Georgette Heyer, doyenne of Regency romance writers, that I turn to when I'm sick or need comfort--this one almost a replacement collection for the ones I sold when I thought I needed more shelf space and could spare them (I obviously couldn't).
So, I'd break it down like this--for books as commodities, consumables in the sense of one-read and basta, e-readers make perfect sense. But for books as objects, repositories, re-usable resources of the mind, physical books will continue on.
What do you all think? Do you own e-readers? What do you use them for? Do you still buy books? If so, what kind and why?
Inquiring minds want to know.