E-Books: Calming the E-Terror of Book Lovers [Part IV]
Posted by Ian in Books, Business, Industry ThoughtsWe know what e-books are (as well as what they are not), something of the devices, and some of the rough details of the effectiveness of one device’s functions, as well as the outline of the concept of ‘e-books’… now let’s get a bit philosophical.
The concept of “book” hasn’t changed since around the mid-5th Century AD. This date is a bit of a guess, but represents the rough time that “scroll” was replaced by “book”; the object sometimes termed “a codex”, which is best defined as “several or more sheets of paper bound together at one point so as to provide one cohesive unit containing multiple “pages”. In this definition, anything from an event’s slim programme up to a copy of The Bible produced by Mr. Gutenberg counts as “a book”. What that object aims to do – specifically the task it is to perform, and has performed quite well – is the whole matter we examine here.
The real test of any device – certainly in the case of one which replaces an already existing object – is how easy is it to operate? as well as does this operation get in the way of the task or assist you with the accomplishment of it? A shovel (or spade, if you prefer) achieves the movement of soil; a knife cuts material into smaller portions; bleach kills germs, as well as reducing any colour or tint which may be associated with said bacteria. All of these tools require a sufficient awareness of their uses and some facility with their correct implementation as part of the doing of the task; using a shovel to pierce un-broken ground isn’t as successful as the use of a spade, for instance.
So, with this new “e-book” object – whatever the device you choose to use for the task; Kindle, Kobo eReader, PlasticLogic, iPhone, etc. – is assigned one specific purpose, just the same as the printed book: provide words for the reading of same with clarity of display, accuracy to the writer’s / editor’s / story’s intents, and all with a minimum of fuss and muss. Ideally, the actual provision of the words should be so effective and non-intrusive that you forget you’re holding any object of any kind as the story or narrative account carries you off to that far-away place the mind travels to when one is reading. Printed, bound books have done this quite well for a very long time, and do so just as effectively as “scroll” did prior to them.
When the time came for the shift from a long, rolled-up piece of paper or other thin material was replaced by a ream of sheets held together, people no doubt had a period of adjustment from “rolling and unrolling” to “turning the page”; this period of adjustment varying in length depending on how set in their ways the reader was, as well as how much they subconsciously objected to the change in the first place. The chief advantage of “book” over “scroll”, was that it was less frequent for one story to span several “books” than it was for a story to span several “scrolls”. Certainly, we have multi-volume sets of books to this day, but principally these are limited to sagas of fiction which contain several novels in one ‘story cycle’ such as “The Lord of the Rings” (termed by its author as one novel in three volumes), “The Chronicles of Narnia”, or the “Foundation Series”; or the obvious use of multiple volumes to contain such a mass of information that the only practical method of achievement is the use of two or more, such as several varieties of the Oxford Dictionary or any one of a number of encyclopædias or thesauri. The ability to locate and consume one story using only one “book” was viewed as “a good thing” by those at the time, but only because the method of “getting words into the brain” was the same: characters grouped into words which then formed sentences using rules agreed to by those who consumed the stories as being “language”, and thus the act was termed “reading”.
This may be reacted to by you as “well, obviously; but so what?” Keep in mind that, with any technology or idea, one has to break things down as much as possible without anything being taken for granted prior to examination of the question. In the case of ‘reading’, it’s important to define what’s important to the process. We’ve done it for several millennia, it’s served us well, but – like breathing – it’s so much a part of our life we easily lose track of how we do it.
Now we have a new way through which the written word can be provided for reading of fiction or non-fiction: electronic books. Some say “this is not a real book”, but I wonder how valid the statement is, given the double-enquiry below examining the matter:
- What portion of the act of reading is no longer the same as before?
- words are presented on a flat surface
- words are in an order predetermined by the author and/or editor
- What aspect of the “book” is no longer honoured?
- there is a structurally defined beginning and end to each ‘book’
- the “chapter”, “introduction”, and “afterword” are all present
- if the reader wishes to go to the previous chapter or page, in order to review the story’s details, they may easily do so
- each and every word is interpreted by the brain by means of a series of alpha-numeric symbols
Some challenge the actual validity of the existence of electronic books, dismissing them as being nothing more than than “a solution to a problem which doesn’t exist”. While this point is something I wish to go into some detail about in a future next post, the fact that those who do not see the use for electronic books by themselves should not – indeed, cannot – sufficiently dismiss the validity of the use of the form by others, as this is hardly considerate.
While there are those who are of the opinion that “all printed formats of books are useless and ought to be eliminated from the face of the earth”, arguing that “people need to be forced to use e-books”, this view is equally unacceptable due to its blinkered approach to the massive world investment in printed book infrastructure (shelves, library collections, printing and binding machines, distribution networks), never mind the sheer historical and aesthetic value of the objects. Why throw-away all those books, shelving, and so on, when there are countless years of use left in them?
Both of the above opinions are examples of shrill, knee-jerk extremism, and are neither logical nor intelligently arrived at.
What I wish to do is to challenge the wet-hen notions of those who even poo-poo the mere suggestion that electronic book forms have valid uses.
Previous hand-held electronic book units have had poor displays for reading in all but the most ideal lighting situations, it’s true, but the new E Ink technology is in some ways better than reading from traditionally printed paper when viewed in full sunlight. Other methods of display using screens employing a light within the screen’s construction are much like any computer screen: heavy use of power is required, thereby increasing battery consumption, plus adding an almost certain degree of eye-strain for the user over any extended period of time. Again, the E Ink display requires an outside source of light to permit viewing of the “page” of the “book”, identical to the requirements of the printed book’s provision of viewing via reflected light.
Previous hand-held units have had screens of such a small size, as well as typography of such dimensions, that words were either too tiny to comfortably read, there were so few words displayed that ‘page turns’ were frequent enough that the flow of the story was interrupted to the point of distraction, or the letter-shapes were simply too ugly to forget you were using a computer-based display. Again, the new crop of hand-held readers frequently provide the uses the option of using their preference of serif or sans-serif typefaces – both of which in faces identical to printed versions – as well as several size variants suitable to the requirements of the reader’s vision. Likewise, the screens used in various hand-held units can vary in size from the Apple iPod’s 3½ inches (320×480 PX at 163 PPI) to the iRex Technologies’ Digital Reader 1000’s more than 10 inch (1024×1280 pixels at 160 PPI). Somewhere in there is a device which has a screen to suit any requirement of being compact for convenient use, yet large enough for clarity.
If I read the entire “His Dark Materials” series of books by Philip Pullman in electronic form on my Kobo eReader – in case you were wondering, this is something which I have actually done – what portion of the books’ enjoyment and appreciation of their writings have I missed? What aspect have I not enjoyed or appreciated? For those whose reply is about the feel or smell of the printed book, you are asked to consider the notion that those aspects have nothing to do with the story per se and are, in fact, antiquity-based fetishism of “the book” as object, and not the book as story or tale. Ultimately, what the book is supposed to do is the provision of the author’s words into a reader’s head. The smell of the binding paste and the feel of the jacket’s laminated coating are merely a part of the book itself, and do not form a portion of the writer’s effort in even the smallest degree.
The simple fact is that e-books have a perfect right to exist alongside printed ones, just as both paperback and hardcover books are equally valid forms of printed books. To shun the e-book as “silly” is arrogant and demonstrates the programming of the consumerist society where packaging creates the illusion of worth applied to its contents. Merely because fæces are enclosed in a silk-covered box with a ribbon made from the carefully woven hairs of the pure-bred Alpaca doesn’t in any way increase the worth of them. Those who demand that any book cannot be truly appreciated in electronic form are of a similar mind-set as those who declare the Great Works of Literature can only be properly read in massive, leather-bound editions and therefore anyone who reads them in the Penguin Classic editions “aren’t really reading them, you know”. Who can fairly say to someone who is clearly enjoying reading the same words set out by the author “you may think you’re enjoying that, but you’re not”? They clearly are enjoying reading it, just in a convenient, pocket-sized, paperback format and not in the way the judgmental viewer would themselves prefer to. The words and plot of the story are identical in every way.
The contents and quality of the writing are what matter here, and are un-affected by the quality of their binding or format. Wine has its taste improved or changed by the shape of a glass or the temperature at which is it served, but that protean quality is not shared by the eternal and inalterable word.
Those who say e-books aren’t “books”, or even aren’t “proper literature” have, quite literally, lost the plot when it comes to what books are supposed to do. They’re not objects for looking at on a shelf as interior decoration; they’re a method of getting the imaginations of writers into the hands of those who want to share in those stories.
Entries (RSS)
To be honest I’ve not read, but only scanned, your piece here once it became obvious that it was an apologia for the abomination laughingly referred to as an “e-book”.
I have my own issues with such misuse of technology, but I think the best argument against such was recently put forth by none other than Jeff Vandermeer who essentially pronounced them dead as door nails once the oil runs out. Considering how soon that’s going to be happening, I think I can safely ignore the investment.
You ask what the differences are between a REAL book and a fake one and answer it in a manner that ignores all of the most important differences:
you need electricity to run it. No battee, no readee.
books have a smell. fake books smell of ozone (if they smell of anything other than fried wiring)
here I am being semi-serious: there are all kinds of reading angles that e-books do not accomodate and many of them still have trouble in very bright sunshine. So much for the beach read.
There’s no two-fisted reading appeal and, perhaps most egregious of all: I am sick to death of pushing buttons and touching contact areas. I’m forced to do it every day with phones, screens and what-not and will not do it on a book: rolling a scroll and turning a page are very similar physical activities. Touching is not.
First, electronic books have nothing to apologize for; that’s my point. The whole purpose of a printed book is to provide your imagination with words, which is precisely what an e-book does identically to the printed version.
Secondly, the full-sun reading of an e-reader using an E Ink screen — which is about 99.97% of them — is in many ways superior to reading from paper. So much for skipping the use of them at the beach.
Thirdly, what does a smell from a bound book have to do with the story? Did Dickens consider what plot-line twist would benefit most from the off-gassing of tanned leather? The notion that the loss of “the book smell” reduces the appreciation of literature is the single best indication that the person espousing it has lost track of what a book is. Books aren’t fetish objects, they’re pieces of paper sewn together, with words on them. The words are what counts, not some romanticized twaddle about the touch and the feel of things. I could lapse rhapsodic about the feel of the polished rubber on the back of my Kobo eReader, but I don’t; it doesn’t matter a toss when I’m reading.
Fourthly, the power question is moot, frankly. “When the oil runs out” makes no difference to the supply of Hydo-Electric power, nor does oil have any influence upon the supply of Solar-Electric power. Supply of oil does, however, effect the provision of printed books which need to be delivered by trucks and / or trains to your door or a bookshop near you; and how are you getting to that shop, by the way? How are those trees getting to that pulp & paper plant, where they are to be converted into rolls of paper stock which are then transported to the printers and then to the publisher’s warehouse, then to the distributor’s warehouse, and then…
It’s an open secret in the publishing industry that up to 2⁄3 of a title’s print run is pre-destined to be thrown away un-read. In order to get a cheaper per-unit production cost, the print run for a title balloons and the ‘extra’ which is already known to be never sold is stored for a short time (in case the title becomes ‘hot’), then the copies are stripped and pulped.
Given our present concern about natural resources, how does the printed book serve anyone’s interest and the electronic book does not? I submit that the printed book is the one who needs apologizers.