|
Good discussion as far as it goes, I guess. But we're still looking at "the book" chiefly in the context of fiction / pleasure reading. And the same arguments and ideas keep getting presented over and over. What about "re-inventing" the book? Do we even yet know what a "book" is in the digital context? I'm getting tired of the warm, cozy "I like the feel of paper, smell of books etc." kind of argument. Equally repetitive is the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" crowd. Given the potential of digital texts for education and research the paper "book" *is* broken. Enough with the nostalgia.
Believe it or not, e-books (or e-texts etc.) can (potentially) be far more powerful (and may I say useful?) than paper books. They can "talk" to other books, show you their contents instantly, announce themselves when they are published, *show* you a medical procedure in video while describing it and referencing other literature sources in print. They can put in your hands (literally) copies of rare source documents you would need several lifetimes (and the travel budget of Bill Gates) to find, if you ever could. Footnotes can link to the actual source in addition to commenting. Can your print book instantly size the type larger for these 50 year old eyes of mine? Can I carry around 100 print novels, 5 fat print dictionaries and an entire print encyclopedia set in the palm of my hand? We have not even scratched the faintest surface of what "digital books" or "digital publishing" could mean. Personally, I'm not so much interested in the death or continued life of paper books, but the nearly limitless potential of digital ones.
|