In J. David Bolter’s book Writing Space, he cites Victor Hugo’s Notre-Dame de Paris, in the idea “this will destroy that”. Bolter uses this quote and brings it to modern times asking will print being put on computers destroy the physical book, will this destroy that.
When it comes to this argument of printed text versus the computer and who will win, my question is why are they fighting? It is no question that these two forms of writing or publishing are different, when something is published in a physical book and distributed it is almost impossible to fix an error with it, and when something is put on the computer an error or typo can be fixed almost immediately. Beyond that the physical book creates more of a home-like feeling, being able to touch the words and turn the page, where as the computer is a brightly lit screen where the words seem t just continue without a break. So there is no arguing that the two means of writing are different, however just because they are different must we pick one? Can’t we take both methods for what they have to offer? The book for it’s home-like feeling that allows a story to come alive in your hands, and the computer for its precision and open-endedness. I believe the two can exist both separately but together so that we never have to choose the strengths of one and lose the strengths of another.
An interesting perspective, Dan... as always. I’m in complete agreement. I don’t understand why physical books and e-books cannot coexist, but we look to economics and consumer buying habits to blame for this battle. As American society shifts toward computing, literature seems to follow. As we’ve discussed before, the recent rise in portable e-book readers are evidence to support this claim. But me—like my good-old dad—won’t ever get rid of all my physical books.
ReplyDelete