When I was a kid, I found the thought of reading a book on a screen daunting. I wanted to be able to turn the pages, flip forward and back with ease. In an era before portable computing, I shuddered to think of how limiting it would be sitting by my computer trying to read a book on a flickering white screen.
After a few years of post secondary education, and after countless hours of reading things on my laptop, I’m no longer hostile to the idea of never picking up a paper book again. Not only would my laptop be able to carry more books than I could read in my lifetime, it is easy to make notes, cut and paste interesting tidbits to send to my friends, or search for something I want to reread.
Today’s globe has an interesting article looking at the future of literature but I came across what strikes me as a complete lack of understanding coming from Robert Darnton, director of the University Library at Harvard.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080605.wrussell05/BNStory/Technology
Interestingly, a U.S. essayist with an interest in the future of libraries takes a slightly different view of their role in the digital age. Robert Darnton, director of the University Library at Harvard, wrote recently in the New York Review of Books that no matter how successful the Google book project becomes - no matter how many libraries co-operate and no matter how many billions of pages are ultimately archived online - physical libraries full of paper books will become "more important than ever."
His argument rests on eight points: (1) The full holdings of the world's libraries can never be completely digitized, which may lead to the important non-digitized books being ignored; (2) Google has not ventured into libraries' special collections, where the rarest books are found (3); arguments over copyright will continue to be a problem; (4) obsolescence is built into electronic media, and Google is a company that, like any other, may suffer economic reverses; (5) Google will make mistakes, and the visual reproduction of actual pages will never be perfect; (6) electronic media become degraded over time - nothing guarantees preservation like ink on paper; (7) Google does not employ bibliographers to rank the importance of various editions, so is of little help to researchers; and (8) a book's physical aspects, its stains, its smells, its marginalia, "provide clues about its existence as an element in a social and economic system."
I will respond to each of his points in turn.
1. I don’t understand why this is true. There is a finite number of books in the libraries of the world today, and I don’t imagine that many books are being written on typewriters to be reproduced by a first generation printing press. If an electronic copy of a book exists as should be the case for all books printed from this day forward it can be put online, and it would only be a matter of time and concerted effort to digitize what remains.
2. What are the chances that I could venture into the libraries’ special collections where the rarest books are found? Would the library trust me not to damage them? Is there a waiting list for people with a “legitimate” academic need for them, which I could not get on? These seem to be all the more compelling arguments for why they should be digitized.
3. It seems short sighted to say that this problem will never be resolved. We have seen countless new business models capitalize on trends which used to cause only concerns about copyright. I’m thinking here along the lines of iTunes for mp3 and movie downloads, or the use of P2P for distribution of legitimate content. Maybe being confined to the Harvard library, Mr. Danton is unaware of these developments.
4. Obsolescence may be built into electronic media, but strangely I can play Atari and arcade games on my current computer. I can listen to music that was originally recorded on vinyl, or even to music that was written before any recoding devices existed. This seems like a false argument.
5. The visual reproduction may not be prefect now, but again, look how far technologies like Optical Character Recognition have come in a few short years. What was once almost useless is now capable almost all the time. Combined with innovations like wikipedia which allow users to modify content this problem is easily overcome.
6. Paper doesn’t become degraded over time? I guess the documents of ancient civilizations are in the same state now that they were at the time of their writing? I suppose I’m also forgetting that paper is immune to fire, water, rats etc…just like you have multiple copies of books in multiple libraries, multiple copies of electronic media are stored on multiple locations.
7. Again a wiki concept could serve to eliminate this as a problem. Researchers themselves could collaborate to determine the importance of various editions. I don’t think any library I have ever gone into has provided me with a ranking of the importance of the various editions, so again, this seems like a non issue for most people.
8. I suppose this is an argument. It doesn’t apply to me in full, or I imagine to many of the people who have grown up with computers their entire lives. It may be true for librarians, but this sounds to me like an argument that is simply there to justify the continued existence of library employees.
2 comments:
Impending Catastrophe and the Printed Word:
Though I am not against E books per se; I do think that libraries still have value for a number of reasons. First. libraries and books generally i believe are becoming or can become a refuge from the computer screen. All information and exercises today are being increasingly mediated by computers. For people who spend 8 hours a day at work (like me right now) and 2 more at home on their computer, it seems that the library and printed word would be a welcome escape from the excessive demands of social and profeesional life. Two, in this is not unrelated to the first, there is a social aspect to libraries and books that E books cannot replicate. Specifically, for those who make notes in the books they borrow, it is an insight into someone else's opinions and thoughts on the subject. Also, merely travelling to the library might be a nice way to "get away from it all." Finally, and the this is the least likely, but the scariest reason to keep libraries around. What if, Yes AUgust, What if! we experienced a catastrophe in the distant future which completely erased all of the books and info we had transferred on to computers? What then? Centuries of knowledge would be lost.
White text on a black background seems to me the best argument available for the continued relevance of good old fashioned books. Though it probably doesn't help that I prefer to do all my computing in the dark.
And this guy is absolutely right about the importance a book's smell. Don't you ever find yourself taking out books from the porter just to sniff them? Nothing cheers me up in the morning like the wafting aroma of some fresh Gore Vidal.
Finally, I really do think that newspapers on the computer are inferior to print versions. My globe and mail doesn't crash when I spill my coffee on it at breakfast, which happens at least 1 out of 5 days of the week.
Post a Comment