On the Romanticism of Books
The post I made last week on books, Google making us dumb, and the like, has been a popular meme on the Web, especially so among educators.
Among the things I read were sentiments I’d heard before about books. Somehow “Google Changing Us” meant to some books are better. Of course, it’s easy to lose that argument, because books aren’t better: they cost us trees and ink, they are not searchable (at least not by the speeds we are accustomed to), and they take up a lot of physical space. Yes, there are some advantages folks point out, but in another generation, legibility should be fixed.
So, instead having a rational explanation for people not liking the fact that Google (and computers) might be changing their minds, and all the business with books, we hear from some an outpouring of book love and favor that could only be described as the profound romanticism of books.
A lot of points are made. The smell, the feel of “good quality” paper, the typefaces (even so, by folks who can’t tell Times from Bembo), the heft of the binding and covers, and who knows what else. I was recently contacted by a reader who described the ultimate book experience like this: “the zen of books…” With such love for inked paper held together with glue and stitching, it’s hard not to notice the sense of luxury people hold to the book experience.
I recently acquired a Kindle to see what I thought. Could this be a tool of the future?
The Kindle offers a lot of technology in a little package, and I ultimately feel it’s for folks who aren’t necessarily computer people. Would I ever pay for blogs just to be able to read them on a specific device? No, that’s against the “culture” I’m used to in blogging. The Kindle newspaper subscriptions are even a little bit of a stretch for me.
But the Kindle does offer some things I think even some book romantics might like: electronic paper versus a backlit screen, book shopping built-in, bookmarks, and even the ability to “highlight.”
Whereas the iPhone significantly improved the genre (of a cell phone), I don’t think the Kindle was quite as successful. It made some significant strides, but ultimately falls short (in its current form). No doubt, like many new technologies, it will continue to evolve and improve.
But back to this romanticism. I am of course not totally immune from it, but let’s look at what I mean:
- Books are better because they feel better in my hands.
- Books are about depth, the Web is about breadth.
- Reading books, hours at a time, is a noble pastime of the literate and cultured.
- The Internet is Geocities and MySpace (read: trash), books are art (read: Sense and Sensibility, Tom Sawyer).
- A computer screen (and maybe even a Kindle) cannot replace bona fide, traditional, timeless paper books.
I just assumed these, I didn’t find anyone saying precisely these things. But I also imagine what kids might be saying:
- Books are worse because they’re heavy to carry around and then you dump them. (We live in a throw-away society.)
- The Web is about connections and constantly drawing a bigger picture of the world. (The Web is attractive for its breadth, but many times offers depth to those who have the interest.)
- Time is limited; I can read on my cell phone or new iPod when I’m waiting around (in line, in the car, the bus, etc.) to see what’s going on. (Technology offers convenience.)
- The Web is what’s happening now, not ideas that had to be written and finalized ages ago. (The Web, via Twitter, RSS, and more is what’s going on right now and being in the know on the latest stuff is, well, the best.)
- When I read, I can also listen to music, watch videos, and IM friends; reading alone is boring. (Single minded vs. multitasking preferences.)
So, yes, I’ve admitted “Google” has changed us. But my message is this: Don’t glorify books against technology just because you romanticize the book experience. Know that the students you teach don’t very likely even understand these romantic notions. They instead demonstrate interest in what’s faster, flashier, higher-resolution, and more powerful. Don’t miss the evolution of media or the revolution taking place in education.
As ever, sometimes change is taxing.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
John,
Maybe we should ask our kids what they prefer and why they do what they do. I am a strong believer is data. From what i’ve seen in the classroom, students read books when they want to read something for pleasure. I guess it’s that depth vs breadth concept you brought up. Remember when the Harry Potter series was coming out and how many books you saw in the classroom? Now, if there was technology that could give them that content without having to buy the book, would they prefer that? I don’t know, however, i think it would be an interesting question to ask. Maybe you could suggest a technology tends and opinions survey at the beginning of the year from various areas and age groups and compare the results?
June 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I would also appreciate seeing some data on this topic, but you’d have to be careful about what you ask. I.e., if you ask attitude questions, these can be misinformed (e.g., I’d prefer to read on an electronic tablet, but in practice, I read more paper-based media in the given time period…).
I guess the perfect test would be a comprehension test given after a period where both resources were made available, and where you could track the amount of time + clicks recorded on the digital device.
I think your point, M.W., is aimed at proving me wrong, or at least to say, “Don’t kill off the book so soon, there are kids reading books!”
But I don’t care what people read. No doubt, the technologies of books and of machines will happily co-exist for at least another 20 years.
What essentially bothers me in these discussions is a seemingly romantically-held notion that books offer something valuable that digital technologies do not. We might equate it to hand-churned butter vs. supermarket butter. The hand-made butter is harder to make, takes far more energy than I care to invest, yet, if I offered you a piece of bread and a choice of butters, most folks (again, I’m guessing) would take the hand-made. Why?
It takes on artisanal qualities. And in our current society, we’re questing for authenticity. It’s visible in all kinds of areas. We blindly follow the notion that “homemade” is better. In some cases, it is.
Without practice, however, that machine made butter might just taste better, for nothing else, it’s consistently made. The recipe was perfected thousands of iterations earlier. I cheat at home when I serve butter to guests; I make a compound butter with herbs or honey, and that “hand-touched” quality adds value, at least the guests think so. Ultimately, it’s smoke and mirrors.
Books, I feel, are taking on that smokey-mirrored quality in some of these discussions. People are pining for this more authentic experience… rubbing fingers over words… feeling the paper…
No doubt, when you observe kids reading books in class, they really don’t have any competition. I’m not saying book on Kindle beats book in paperback, no matter the content… No adult or kid will tell you holding a laptop for an hour or two is more comfortable than a .75 ounce book.
But my acquisition of the Kindle reaffirms my feeling that unless folks can propose better reasons, and not romantic notions, the end of the book is near. In time, they will be sold as luxury items, sure, if not for the tangible texture of the material, then the authenticity of the historical genre.
With this new technology, you walk into a classroom, the book is automagically delivered to your device (whatever this is), and it has Kindle-like qualities: it’s low power, it’s networked, and it’s capable of holding everything you’d want or be asked, to read.
Then after that passes, we’ll be using devices that pass us one word at a time: it’s far more efficient. Likewise, short “tastings” of things, from fish, to butter beans, to pop music, to sitcoms, all are pretty popular. I honestly believe the way “Google” (read: technology) is shaping us, it’s to go after more bang for the buck.
And if you read Ray Kurzweil, he predicts that next, we’ll likely be able to bypass our eyes altogether, and connect something akin to a datastream directly to our brains.
Okay, so I’ve gone ahead 100 years (or 102, who can say).
Back to your question: would the kids prefer the digital analog to books? I am not sure they’ll ever get that choice. The marketplace may choose for them. And then retired teachers can spend their well-earned retirement money on glue, paper, and stitching.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
i’m not sure I’m looking to prove you wrong. i’m personally interested in the answer. I think this also goes back to how we read. What is it about the web that causes me to skim as opposed to reading every word for meaning? Does the technology give me that mind set or do I have the mind set before even dealing with the technology? What is it about Google that is “changing us?” Is that “change” for the good?
One last comment:
John, you said, “Back to your question: would the kids prefer the digital analog to books? I am not sure they’ll ever get that choice. The marketplace may choose for them.”
I have to totally disagree with you on this one. The generation we are teaching now IS the market that will decide. They already control billions of dollars (mostly their parents money) of discretionary income and their influence will grow with their increased buying power.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:04 am
@ M.W.:
They have determined we skim and scan instead of read every word online through usability testing (Jakob Nielsen). Imagine sitting at a desk chair, with a book propped up on a stand, at an angle, like a laptop screen. I don’t think that’s comfortable. Add into that the interactive component (how many times people click per minute to feel like they’re actually making changes and interacting with something) and we get that behavior.
We’ve been culturally sensitized that books are not interactive. If I read for pleasure, I sit in a nice chair or bed. If I read to learn, I sit at a table in a position that is as comfortable as possible and that also allows me to highlight with a marker.
I hate to keep using “Google” as the name for this, but understand I mean “Web” and “Digital Technologies” when I say it. The “Google Effect” is good in that it allows us to have access to more and see big connections. It’s bad, as we are less tolerant of bigger ideas, at least from one source. I think you’re in the best camp if you can still tolerate both.
I have to totally disagree with you on this one. The generation we are teaching now IS the market that will decide. They already control billions of dollars (mostly their parents money) of discretionary income and their influence will grow with their increased buying power.
Our kids (and their kids, really) will definitely be an economic factor in the development of what technologies fly and which ones don’t. But don’t be fooled into thinking there aren’t companies now preparing products for market that aren’t the result of buyer polls, but rather the availability of technology that has been evolving over a period far longer than these kids have been alive.
Electronic paper was created around the same time I was born. So, some 30-year old technology is now finding its way for sale in the marketplace. This Amazon experiment (and it is, really, an experiment, just as Amazon.com itself was one in 1995) will be something that will determine whether books go away.
And if they do… let the record show that in June, 2008, I was predicting as much. My guess is that by 2020, there will no longer be Barnes & Nobles at our malls, or Borders. And I also predict the decline of the public library as we know it today.
Let’s not forget that some of the best, most lucrative products in our lifetime have been ones that public never knew they needed. Who is buying all those iPods?
Only time will tell.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Fascinating discussion. I’ve been tempted, but I haven’t bought a Kindle yet. Like you, John, I don’t think they’ve got it quite right yet and, like the iPhone, I think they’ll make some of the necessary improvements in version 2. And I especially hope they improve the experience of reading a newspapers and magazines on it. One of the major benefits I’d like is for it to reduce the amount of stuff I throw away.
What I’m also hoping for the Kindle is that it recreates that experience of reading a book. Up to now, I think it’s been a unique feature of the book: That it lets you immerse yourself into the world or the argument that the author is setting up. When done right, it captures your total focus for an extended period of time. It doesn’t have all the links and the Flash ads that will distract you. Plus it contains an extended work. Even though you probably won’t read it at one sitting, if it’s interesting, you’ll come back to it. How many times do you go back to finish reading something on a webpage?
I think the fact that the book is so unique is why the romanticism exists and is deserved. Now if the Kindle can replicate that, that’s great, that’s what’s going to make it successful. So I can buy your argument that the book itself isn’t special, but I definitely think that particular experience is.